Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

MEMORIAL TO FIELD MARSHAL SMUTS

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. STUDHOLME) reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that a monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Field Marshal Smuts as an expression of the admiration of the House of Commons for his illustrious career and its gratitude for his devoted service to the Commonwealth, and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.

I will gladly give directions for carrying into effect your proposal to do honour to the memory of that great man from whom the Commonwealth and the world has drawn so much faith and strength both in peace and in war.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY LOAD SPREADING, 1952–53

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Labour what progress is being made in the proposed arrangements for load spreading during the winter of 1952–53.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): The Electricity Sub-Committee of the Joint Consultative Committee has been considering the arrangements that will be required in order to spread the electricity load next winter, and its Report is being published today.
The Sub-Committee's principal recommendation is that between 1st November, 1952, and 31st January, 1953, industrial consumers and larger commercial consumers should take steps to reduce their demand at peak hours by at least 10 per cent., and that regional boards should have discretion to vary this percentage in the light of local and regional conditions. The Sub-Committee directs attention to the need for the maximum use of private generating plant, and for the continual exercise of economy during peak hours by domestic and smaller commercial consumers.
The Government have accepted the recommendations and regional boards will shortly be asking firms and organisations to co-operate in putting them into effect. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing warm appreciation of the work done by both sides of industry as well as by the regional boards and the area peak economy committees in dealing with this difficult problem.

Mr. Nabarro: While welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's exhortation for the maximum use of independent generating plant, may I ask him whether he realises that it is estimated that next winter there will be a deficit of 10 per cent. between the maximum generating capacity of power houses and the maximum demand at peak hours on an average winter day, and a 20 per cent. deficit on a cold winter day? In those circumstances, is it not very dangerous to abate load spreading which has served us so well in recent years?

Sir W. Monckton: I am anxious that everyone should bear in mind the exhortation which the Committee make in their Report, not only with respect to private generating plants but also that it is more than ever necessary that regional boards should have full discretion to take account of changing circumstances.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does this not mean a greater reduction in load spreading which was arranged for last winter? In view of the fact that the industrial demand for electricity in this country ought to increase far beyond our power to increase power station capacity, and since load spreading means a more economical use of power stations, ought we not to retain as a permanent part of our policy arrangements which worked last winter?

Sir W. Monckton: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the important thing is the degree to which it is necessary to retain it, and I am sure that when he reads the Report he may wish to reconsider the matter again and perhaps put another Question.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does that 10 per cent. reduction mean a 10 per cent. reduction in last year's figures, or in the estimated forecast for this year?

Sir W. Monckton: It is 10 per cent. on the estimated forecast for this year, as I understand it.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the not wholly satisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

West Fife

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the increasing difficulty of women in obtaining employment in West Fife; and what steps he is taking to remedy the position.

Sir W. Monckton: I know there is unemployment of women here, most of it due to short-time working. There are prospects of alternative work for a number of the redundant workers, but reliance must mainly be placed on increased activity in the textile trades.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, according to figures from the Dunfermline exchange, unemployment has increased by about 25 per cent. in the last month, not including those who are temporarily stopped? Is he further aware that there is a lot of short-time working in the textile industry in the Dunfermline area and that that is coupled with the fact that there are many miners coming in with their wives from the West? Would he not consult with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the possibility of bringing into West Fife some alternative light industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I would point out that for the area as a whole, not speaking of Dunfermline itself, there has been an increase, but only from 1,132 in January to 1,230 in June. As to Dunfermline, recruiting is now going on at the Royal Naval Armament Depot, which I agree only takes a certain number, but I will look at this particular place in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Labour Supply Inspectorate

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give particulars of his scheme to send 100 inspectors to British factories to advise managements on the best uses to be made of skilled labour.

Sir W. Monckton: I explained these arrangements in the answer that I gave on 11th March to the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates). The number of the inspectors is 58 and not 100 as suggested in the Question.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that these inspectors were reported in the "Daily Graphic" to be going to arrange for the transfer of redundant people and so on? Is that their purpose?

Sir W. Monckton: They are mainly engineering inspectors and they deal with certain skilled engineering operations for which there is a severe shortage of qualified men. When further men are asked for in particular industries they go and advise what steps can be taken to reduce the call for further men.

Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman make quite certain that, in any action taken by the managers in consultation with inspectors, trade


unionists in the factory have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the managers?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir.

Out-Workers

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for an inquiry into the conditions of labour in this country of out-workers, also known as home-workers; and whether he will include in such an inquiry investigations into the methods of acquiring this labour by advertising and other means used by firms and individuals who conduct these businesses.

Sir W. Monckton: I am not satisfied that there is any need for a general inquiry into the conditions of out-workers. From the information which my hon. Friend has sent me, I understand that he is concerned about offers of work by certain firms. I am sending the information to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his consideration.

Mr. Fell: Is the Minister aware that Yarmouth people are very concerned about reports that have recently appeared it certain sections of the national Press about the activities of some employers of out-workers, and is he aware that any action which he can take to protect out-workers from any of those employers who might be unscrupulous will be most welcome?

Sir W. Monckton: It is those particular firms in Yarmouth to which I referred in my communication to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements his Department has made for the maximum use of out-workers to assist in any national emergency that might arise.

Sir W. Monckton: No specific arrangements have been made, but this source of manpower will not be overlooked should the need arise.

Building Operatives, Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to provide the building trade operatives for the urgently required house building for the city of Stoke-on-Trent.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir, so far as possible. The employment exchanges will continue to do all they can to meet demands for labour for housing contracts.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister now agree that between 200 and 300 building trade operatives are leaving the city every morning for work miles around, travelling as far as Manchester and Derby, and could not some action be taken to see that the city gets the building trade labour that it requires?

Sir W. Monckton: We are doing what we can to let it be known in the city that there is not only employment in these trades, but also in the surrounding districts where we are circulating the information in the employment exchanges.

Dr. Stross: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider conferring with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and pointing out that as a result of schemes which have received his consent there is an inducement for labour to leave the city to build houses in other parts of the country, and that this is hardly fair to the city of Stoke-on-Trent?

Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly discuss that with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the request made by the National Coal Board for the provision of a large number of new houses each year by the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and what action he intends taking to provide the building trade workers.

Sir W. Monckton: I understand that the Stoke-on-Trent housing programme, including the provision of houses for miners, is at present under discussion between the local authority, the National Coal Board and the Principal Regional Officer of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The second part of the Question is covered by the answer I have just given to the lion. Member's Question No. 6.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the good will between the National Coal Board and the municipality is as good as it possibly can he but that one of their difficulties is going to be labour? Will the


Minister investigate with other Government Departments the allegations that are made that they are allowing expenses for travelling and so on for contracts to be carried out in the immediate vicinity?

Sir W. Monckton: I will look into that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the number of building trade operatives and bricklayers who are registered as unemployed in the employment exchanges in the city of Stoke-on-Trent.

Sir W. Monckton: Twelve craftsmen on 16th June of whom none were brick-layers. There were some 60 other workers, mostly labourers, unemployed whose last employment was in the building industry.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Having at last 'received that information, may I ask whether that does not reveal the necessity for action to be taken to cater for the housing needs of the city and of the incoming miners who are going to be transferred from all parts of the country?

Sir W. Monckton: I can only say that vacancies are very soon found for those who are registered unemployed. The figure has not shown a great change over the last two years.

Mr. Edward Davies: Will the Minister note the effect of altering the licence arrangements, making it possible for unlicensed work up to £200 to proceed, and the effect that this will have in transferring labour from building houses to repair work which is badly needed in our area? Will he also pay particular attention to the financial provisions of his right hon. Friend which are contributing to this position?

Sir W. Monckton: I have said that I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend, and I will bear those points in mind.

Colonial Students

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Labour what facilities exist for colonial students to obtain employment in this country during their summer vacation.

Sir W. Monckton: The service provided by the employment exchanges and

appointments offices is available to colonial students who wish to obtain employment in the vacations. I understand that certain private organisations such as the National Union of Students are also active in this field.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any facilities exist in industry particularly to replace British workers while they are on holiday?

Sir W. Monckton: I have in mind the agriculture industries and the efforts which are made by the National Union of Students in that field where we help by enabling them to travel to and from the work. If there is any other matter perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult with the Colonial Office upon this matter with a view to making the fullest provision of employment for these colonial students?

Sir W. Monckton: I am anxious to do what I can and will consult with them.

Hours of Work

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Labour the average weekly hours of work per man in industry in the United Kingdom over the latest period for which figures are available.

Sir W. Monckton: The average weekly hours actually worked, including overtime, in October, 1951, by manual wage-earners in manufacturing industries generally, and in a number of the principal non-manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom, was 47.8 for men aged 21 years and over. The results of the inquiry made last October were published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for March, 1952.

Mr. Shepherd: Do not these figures rebut the ill-informed views, so often expressed, that people in this country are only working 40 hours a week, and are not these figures about eight hours a week more than the United States, six hours more than France, and about equal to Western Germany?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think I am able to work out the comparisons which my hon. Friend has done, but I can say


that this figure of 47 is the figure which has obtained for a number of years past.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would the Minister not agree that the figure would be better still if some thousands of workers in the Lancashire textile industry had not been on short-time for the last three or four months?

Lanarkshire

Mr. Timmons: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons signing the unemployed register in the various exchanges in Lanarkshire.

Sir W. Monckton: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Timmons: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman persuade the Government to change their whole policy in this matter? Is he aware that as a result of the policy of the Government the firm of John Deer have gone to Paris, because they were prevented from opening up in Lanarkshire, and is he further aware that the firm of Alexander Dunn & Sons are being frustrated in their efforts to develop in Lanarkshire? Will the Minister consult with his colleagues in the matter?

Mr. Brooman-White: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consult with the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade in order to see whether anything further can be done to help the present difficulties in Cambuslang, where the Hoover factory has recently had to lay off about 750 people, largely owing to difficulties in the Australian market?

Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend, as I usually do on these matters; but I would draw attention to the fact that there has not been any substantial change in the total number of people unemployed in these areas for a considerable time.

Mr. Timmons: There is quite a lot of under-employment. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he will make approaches to the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Supply and the Scottish Office, who have done everything possible to prevent Mr. Dunn from getting on with this development?

Following is the reply:


NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN LANARKSHIRE AT 16TH JUNE, 1952


Employment Exchange*
Males
Females


Airdrie
442
619


Bellshill
242
375


Blantyre
164
179


Cambuslang
199
321


Carluke
37
24


Coatbridge
542
632


East Kilbride
13
15


Glasgow†
12,350
6,915


Hamilton
554
407


Lanark
58
84


Larkhall
170
116


Lesmahagow
14
24


Motherwell
396
422


Shotts
167
355


Strathaven
18
21


Uddingston
140
227


Wishaw
335
313


Totals
15,841
11,049


*Including Youth Employment Offices, where appropriate.


†The figures for Glasgow relate to the following Employment Exchanges: Bridgeton, Finnieston, Glasgow Central, Glasgow South Side, Govan, Kinning Park, Maryhill, Parkhead, Partick, Rutherglen, Springburn.

Catering Wages

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases he has had reported to him of catering employers paying their staffs wages out of the tronc; and in how many instances he has introduced legal proceedings against these employers for evasion of payment of wages under the Catering Wages Act.

Sir W. Monckton: I cannot say in how many cases complaints alleging this have been made to and dealt with by my Inspectors. As to proceedings, in two cases criminal proceedings and in one case civil proceedings were taken successfully.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware of the fact that 90 per cent. of the larger catering employers pay the staff wages out of the tronc and hardly any of them pay the wages out of their profits? Is it not about time that these catering employers paid a decent wage out of their profits rather than using the tronc?

Sir W. Monckton: I am afraid that I am not aware of the figure which the hon. Gentleman has given me, but I will certainly look into any material which he can put before me.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister consult with those trade unions in the catering industry who are on the Trade Union Joint Advisory Council? They will give him all the information which he requires.

Sir W. Monckton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in close touch with them.

Shipbuilding

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what effect the heavy reduction in freight rates is anticipated to have on employment in the shipbuilding industry.

Sir W. Monckton: I understand that the fall in tramp shipping freight rates has not affected the demand for new tonnage; ships ordered or under construction are sufficient to keep the shipbuilding industry fully employed for several years.

Mr. Willey: While fully accepting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement of the position as it is now, may I ask if he is aware that a collapse in freight rates such as this almost invariably has a drastic effect on the order books of the ship builders? Will he keep in close consultation with his right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply to see that the necessary steps are taken in advance of this world position affecting our shipbuilding industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I will certainly widen my consultations.

Textile Areas (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on his Parliamentary Secretary's recent visit to the textile areas.

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Labour what information his Parliamentary Secretary gained during his recent visit to Lancashire about the numbers likely to be employed in the textile industry when it reaches the level of activity assumed in the Cotton Working Party's Report of 1946.

Sir W. Monckton: I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for undertaking this visit at my request. The primary object was to see how far the

local offices of my Department were successfully playing their part in meeting the difficulties in this area, and on that I am fully reassured. He had also the opportunity of talking freely with trade unions, managements and civic heads about the problems of the textile industry and as a result he felt, as they do, that there is no reason to be pessimistic about the future of the industry.
The factors essential to its long-term success are there—skill, enterprise, excellent industrial relations, and determination to co-operate to overcome the present difficulties. As the immediate set-back is overcome and textile orders improve a steady recovery in employment may be expected, though a return to the height of the post-war boom does not appear to be likely. I am afraid that at present it is not possible to forecast precisely at what level the labour force will settle down.
I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade certain specific points which the Parliamentary Secretary has brought to my notice.

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the interest shown by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, as indicated by the fact that this trip was made. I should like to ask two questions. First, could the Minister explain what the Parliamentary Secretary meant at his Press conference when he said that the Government might have to take a more cautious view than the Working Party, which suggested a possible labour force of 250,000? Secondly, could he say with what other bodies he has been discussing the size of the industry, and particularly the possibility of alternative employment—and how far those discussions have proceeded?

Sir W. Monckton: I think that my hon. Friend was misunderstood when he spoke at the Press conference. As far as I am informed he did not mention a figure of 250,000, which I should regard as a pessimistic forecast. As to the other questions, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me another opportunity of considering them.

Mr. Fort: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the introduction of new industries into such East


Lancashire towns as Padiham, Great Harwood and Nelson—all of which depend upon textiles for their employment—is being delayed by the absence of skilled engineering labour? If so, what action is he taking to make sure that there is sufficient skilled engineering labour to make it attractive for new industries to go there?

Sir W. Monckton: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the shortage of skilled labour is not confined to this industry or to this district. It is a difficulty which is also met with elsewhere, and it is one of the problems which have to be considered when diversification of industry in an area such as this is under consideration.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not too early to forecast at what level the labour required in the cotton industry will settle down? Does not the Minister appreciate that it would be wrong to wait and see, over the years, at what level it settles down, on a laissez-faire principle? The Government should make up its mind now what is likely to be the optimum level and begin to introduce new industries in those areas which have so far been almost 100 per cent. cotton areas.

Sir W. Monckton: We are most concerned to introduce other industries when the opportunity occurs, but as for fixing a figure here and now and not putting it off for a period of years, or anything of that sort, I think that when the industry itself cannot give a figure it would be dangerous for me to hazard a guess at a moment like this.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that one of the most serious factors of the situation is that the recession in cotton has once again diverted juvenile labour from the industry, so that the age level is once again rising? We cannot hope to build up a prosperous cotton industry with an aged working population. Does not he therefore agree that it is imperative that the Government should give some lead to the industry and make some kind of plan showing what part the Government expect the industry to play in the internal and external markets of this country?

Sir W. Monckton: I appreciate the danger of an ageing population if young people are diverted to other industries.

I had hoped that what I have said today would indicate that, though I do not feel able to give a figure, the Government are not pessimistic about the future of this industry and that people will not be encouraged to leave it for fear of the future.

Agriculture, Hunts. (Youths)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the total placings made in Huntingdonshire by the Youth Employment Service during the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available, were in agriculture and horticulture.

Sir W. Monckton: During the 12 months ended 31st July, 1951, 5.1 per cent. of the total placings made by the Youth Employment Service in Huntingdonshire were in agriculture and horticulture.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is an agricultural county, in parts of which there is a very serious shortage of agricultural labour? Will he do all he can to persuade his Youth Employment Service to encourage the young people to go into farming to a much greater extent than they have so far?

Sir W. Monckton: I am anxious that they should. I would point out that the figure of 5.7 per cent. for Huntingdonshire compares with a figure of 1.7 per cent. for the whole country, and if one looks at the figure for boys, it is about 10.6 per cent. We are doing what we can to encourage others to see the advantages of this scheme.

Mr. McCorquodale: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in the country that the officers of the youth employment committees are more acquainted with the industrial than the agricultural world? Would he make sure that these advisory committees have agricultural interests represented on them wherever possible?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. I would point out that the youth employment officer in Huntingdonshire is well aware of that need and is doing all be can to get the schools in the county not only to go to local farms to see what they are like, but to encourage the adoption of farms under a scheme which the National Farmers' Union have recently introduced.

Palace of Westminster

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Labour in what circumstances Her Majesty's inspectors investigate the conditions under which workers within the Palace of Westminster are employed.

Sir W. Monckton: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind investigations undertaken by H.M. Inspectors of Factories. Certain premises in Old Palace Yard, where a number of processes are undertaken connected with the upkeep of the buildings, including carpentry and repairs to furniture and plant, are subject to the provisions of the Factories Acts and are visited by an inspector. Building operations undertaken by contractors within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster are also visited by inspectors to verify compliance with the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister arrange, therefore, for an inspector to see the conditions under which some of the lift operators in these precincts are employed?

Building Workers, London

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour what special steps he is taking to ensure that unemployed building workers in the London area are being found jobs on the building of houses.

Sir W. Monckton: Employment exchanges bring specially to the notice of suitable unemployed men particulars of outstanding vacancies on housing contracts. A system of circulation ensures that particulars of vacancies, not only in London, but also in surrounding areas and in other parts of the country, are brought immediately to notice.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have some conversations, in very strong language, with his colleague, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is largely responsible for the unusual and inexcusable wastage of manpower involved in the fact that more than 4,200 building workers are unemployed in the London area?

Sir W. Monckton: I have no doubt that I could take advantage of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested

and get his advice as to the suitability of the language in which I might convey those observations to my right hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should be only too pleased to help.

Sir W. Monckton: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would.

Briggs and Fords, Dagenham (Dispute)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour what further steps have been taken to settle the disputes at Briggs and Fords.

Sir W. Monckton: As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on 24th June, there is adequate joint machinery at both firms for dealing constitutionally with matters in dispute. The strikes now taking place are unofficial and in breach of agreements entered into by the unions on behalf of their members.
Both firms have made it clear that there can be no negotiations so long as the strikes continue, and the unions are endeavouring to secure a resumption of normal working. I trust the men will see that the present unconstitutional action is simply resulting in unnecessary suffering and loss to themselves and their families, and that in their own interests they should follow the advice of their unions and return to work immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Education, Dumbartonshire

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools are planned and how many under construction, in the county of Dumbartonshire.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Four schools are under construction, and six are being planned.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the county of Dumbartonshire the percentage of classes in excess of the code is 30.7 per cent., which is three-and-a-half times the average in Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman therefore satisfied that everything is being done to provide adequate school buildings in the county of Dumbartonshire?

Mr. Stuart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, and we are doing what we can. There are 15 further schools under consideration for the future.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools are providing only part-time education to a proportion of the children in the county of Dumbartonshire.

Mr. J. Stuart: None.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my experience, in going round the county, is that I have been told by parents that many children aged six are attending school, some in the mornings and some in the afternoons, and that that is because of the lack of accommodation and the lack of teachers?

Mr. Stuart: It is the case, but these double meetings, as they are called, are not regarded as part-time education. In the circumstances of staffing and accommodation, and in view of the fact that better arrangements cannot be made, it is permitted to have double meetings.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the shortage of teachers in the county of Dumbartonshire; and what steps he is taking to improve this position.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of the shortage, and hope that the position in the county may improve when additional teachers become available under the Special Recruitment Scheme, which is to be continued.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great disquiet in the county and a feeling that, because of the inadequate school accommodation and the general situation in the county, teachers will not come to Dumbartonshire? I do not know whether that is a fact, but it is being said. Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this ugly rumour which is going around, that Dumbartonshire cannot get school teachers because it has not the school accommodation and because of the excessive size of classes?

Mr. Stuart: I will make inquiries.

Potato Harvest (Children)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland for an estimate of the number of schoolchildren who will be

employed in the gathering of potatoes during the coming harvest; and what measures he intends to take to ensure adequate teacher supervision of these children.

Mr. J. Stuart: About 50,000. I have again asked education authorities to ensure that every facility is given to teachers to offer their services.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the response last year, according to the Report, was not very encouraging and that non-teacher supervisors had therefore to be employed? Will the Minister give an assurance that whoever is employed in the supervisory capacity, it will be full and complete supervision so as to ensure that no farmer exploits the position and that every farmer fully observes all the conditions of the scheme?

Mr. Stuart: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. We certainly agree that farmers should not be allowed to exploit the position.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman make a further appeal to teachers? For some reason or another there seems to be an effort to discourage teachers from taking part in this work. There is a great deal of educational opportunity in the field, apart altogether from the time spent on potato lifting, for nature and natural things can be taught to children in a way which is not possible in the schools. I think teachers are missing a great opportunity of helping children when they do not take full part in this work.

Mr. Stuart: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I may say that the education authorities have been asked to ensure that every facility is given to teachers who are willing to take part.

Police (Resignations)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances in which the regular police force in Scotland lost 34 per cent. of its strength through resignation last year before the policemen and policewomen concerned had completed 10 years' service.

Mr. J. Stuart: Resignations of regular police officers with less than 10 years' service amounted in 1951 to just over 2 per cent. of the total actual strength of the service. The figure is not abnormal as compared with other post-war years and would not justify the institution of a general inquiry.

Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Report of the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland shows that a total of 163 out of 471 police officers, men and women, who left the force did so within the first 10 years of their service?

Mr. Stuart: If my hon. Friend would take the figure for the total police force he would find that resignations on these grounds amounted to only 2.2 per cent. and not 34 per cent.; and that is not abnormal.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this Government came into office it has had a most gloomy and depressing effect upon his hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), and could he not do something to cheer him up?

Mr. Stuart: I will talk to him.

Hospital Patients (Hours of Awakening)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to complaints, supported by members of regional hospital boards, that patients are awakened at an unnecessarily early hour; and if he will take action in the matter.

Mr. J. Stuart: This point was dealt with in a Report from the Scottish Health Services Council circulated to hospital authorities last August. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that anything which will reduce the tedium of long weary hours of suffering is very well worth consideration? Will he therefore be active in this matter on his own accord?

Mr. Stuart: Yes. The boards of management have accepted the recommendation which will be found in paragraph 72 of the Council's Report.

Mr. Rankin: Could we be told what is an unnecessarily early hour?

Mr. Stuart: The Report advocated not earlier than 6 a.m. and later if possible.

Herring Industry, Western Isles

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken by the Herring Industry Board and by his Department to revive and develop the fishing industry in the Isles of Barra, the Uists and Harris; and what is the estimated cost of Government assistance for this purpose in the present year.

Mr. J. Stuart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 13th May. As much of the assistance is being provided under general schemes for the benefit of the herring industry, I regret that the answer to the second part of the Question is not available.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in these islands there used to be a very flourishing herring fishing industry giving employment to many of the people in the area and that today there is virtually no herring fishing? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman put some pressure on the Herring Industry Board to set up a processing plant in the area of Barra and South Uist in order to enable the men to land fish for processing in their own islands without making the work uneconomic through having to transport their catch across the Minch every time?

Mr. Stuart: My information is that unfortunately, to a great degree the herring have departed from Barra and South Uist. The scientists do not know the reason, and I am afraid I cannot say what it is.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that it is the Herring Industry Board and the Scottish Office that have deserted Barra and the Uists and not just the herring?

Lobster Fishing, Western Isles

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he now has for easing the hardship caused among Western Isles lobster fishermen by prohibiting the landing of lobsters in spawn in the lobster ponds in Lewis and Harris; and what steps he is


taking to prevent foreign vessels removing large numbers of berried and immature lobsters from the same fishing grounds around the islands.

Mr. J. Stuart: The lobster catch in the Western Isles from January to May is not much less this year than it was in 1951, and I see no reason for action at this moment. The inshore waters are patrolled to prevent illegal fishing by foreign vessels.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that we had much better weather in the spring and summer of this year than we had last year, and the landings would have been very much higher than they have been if it had not been for this pernicious Order; and is he also aware that there is any amount of first-hand evidence among the local fishermen, or any observers in the Western Isles, that French and other foreign vessels come in to fish, both inside and outside territorial waters, for lobsters in spawn and otherwise?

Mr. Stuart: I would like to have notice of the second part of the question. With regard to the first part, I think that it is too early to say that we should alter this Order, whatever adjective one applies to it, because it was brought in with a view to increasing the stocks.

Mr. MacMillan: Does not that mean that it is also too early to argue the other way, and that no evidence has been accepted from any of the men who really know—the local fishermen?

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister say whether any experiments are being carried out to find an alternative to this Order in case, in the course of time, he becomes convinced of what lots of fishermen believe—that it is a bad Order?

Mr. Stuart: I would be very glad to receive any suggestions on the subject.

Mr. John MacLeod: Can the Minister not see that some of the local men on the spot are consulted?

Piers and Jetties, Western Isles

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when work is to begin on the jetties at Portnaguran, Isle of Lewis; Bernera, Isle of Harris; and Newton, Isle of North Uist.

Mr. J. Stuart: The County Council have found it necessary to apply for additional assistance towards the cost of the pier at Portnaguran, and their application is being urgently considered. The County Council's proposals for jetties at Bernera and Newton are being examined, but I am unable at present to say when the work will begin.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that many months ago work on all these jetties was on the point of beginning? The Bernera jetty, in particular, was to be begun in March, and the local people have had no explanation of why there has been this delay. Can he give any indication when this work will be started?

Mr. Stuart: Work on Portnaguran jetty will, I hope, be proceeded with at an early date. As to the arrangements with regard to the other jetties referred to, I am afraid I cannot give a date at the present time.

New Schools, Lanarkshire (Steel)

Mr. Timmons: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of steel which has been allocated to Lanarkshire Education Committee for the school-building programme for 1952–53.

Mr. J. Stuart: Three hundred and fifteen tons, but this does not so far include any allocation for 1953.

Mr. Timmons: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that consideration is given to the representations made to him by the Lanarkshire Members of Parliament and the local education committee; and owing to the serious situation in Lanarkshire which is likely to develop a few years hence, will he make further representation to his right hon. Friend with a view to getting an increased allocation of steel?

Mr. Stuart: I will do my best, and it may be possible, when the allocation of the fourth quarter is known, to increase this somewhat.

Prisoners' Earnings

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of of State for Scotland the hourly rates of wages paid to segregated net-makers in Barlinnie and Peterhead prisons, respectively.

Mr. J. Stuart: No prisoner is paid wages. Those making nets are eligible for payment by way of pocket money on the same basis as those doing other work, and their average weekly earnings in both Barlinnie—where they are not segregated—and Peterhead are 2s. 5d.

Mr. Rankin: I thought that all the prisoners earned the wages of sin, but I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman dissociates himself from that. May I ask him if he is aware that the segregated prisoners create a problem of peculiar difficulty within these prisons, and would he make as widely-known as possible among the prisoners concerned the facts which he has just given to the House?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Steele: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if there are any prisoners left in Barlinnie Prison, in view of the Prime Minister's promise to set the people free?

Tourists

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what schemes are in operation or preparation to attract visitors to Scotland during the holiday season.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am asking the Scottish Tourist Board to send to the hon. Member particulars of their schemes for attracting visitors to Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to see if it is not possible to bring the Comet and the Brabazon to Scotland as an additional attraction for flights of short duration during the holiday season?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the important and relevant fact that Scotland has many ties of kinship with thousands of Canadian families who should be offered special facilities of revisiting the land of their fathers, and will he offer them special fares, accommodation and publicity to enable them to do so?

Mr. Stuart: It is with that in view that Trans-Atlantic ships have been urged to come into the Clyde.

Flooding, Garnock Valley

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he estimates the implementation of the recommendations on land drainage, contained in the Duncan Report, would prevent the recurring flooding of the Garnock Valley.

Mr. J. Stuart: On the general question of implementing the Duncan Report I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) on 1st July. I have no reason to doubt that if new powers were available for dealing with such cases an effective scheme could be framed for the Garnock Valley.

Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of when he will attempt this legislation arising from the recommendations of the Duncan Report? Is he aware that in the village of Lanark, owing to this recurring flooding, tenants are not able to ensure their homes from flood damage during the winter time?

Mr. Stuart: I am aware of this serious position and negotiations are taking place. I would like to see legislation through, but I am afraid that I cannot give a date at this stage.

Daer Water Project

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his decision to cut expenditure on the Daer water project of Lanarkshire will be reconsidered, in view of the probable consequences to housing schemes and industrial development in the area.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am glad to say that I have now been able to agree to a revised programme submitted by the Daer Water Board and no immediate threat to housing or industrial development in the area arises.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to the people of Lanarkshire?

Basic Slag Subsidy

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, since there is a national price for basic slag, why a higher subsidy is payable to farmers in Northern Ireland than in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: The new national price for basic slag, which took effect from 8th June, is for slag delivered at the nearest port or railway station in Great Britain. The purchaser bears the cost of transport from this point to his farm. For basic slag imported in Northern Ireland there is an additional freight charge for transport to Northern Ireland ports. The higher subsidy is designed to equalise so far as possible the cost to farmers in Northern Ireland with the cost to farmers in Great Britain.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case, though, that basic slag costs more in the outlying parts of the Highlands and in the outer islands of Orkney and Shetland than it does even in the wildest bogs of Ireland?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, but this addition is really for transport from the port in this country to a Northern Ireland port.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that during the war an arrangement was come to by which the freight on line was made approximately equal to outlying districts; and could he look into the question of whether the Orkney and Shetland and other outlying districts could have the benefit of the subsidy that is given to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stuart: I see the point, and I shall be glad to look into it.

Piers and Harbours (Provisional Orders)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to accelerate Provisional Order Procedure as it applies to piers and harbours.

Mr. J. Stuart: I hope within the next few days to announce a revised procedure which will enable Provisional Orders under the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, to be drafted, made and confirmed more quickly.

Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman also intend to raise the maximum under which an order is not required?

Mr. Stuart: I am afraid that that would require legislation. I did answer that point on 11th March.

Herring Processing Factory, Ullapool

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Herring Industry Board propose to erect a processing factory on the mainland of Wester, Ross-shire.

Mr. J. Stuart: Proposals for the erection by the board at Government expense of a herring oil and meal factory at Ullapool are now being examined.

Mr. MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Ullapool some 20 per cent. of the catch is transported many many miles over atrocious roads at a loss of fuel and power to the nation; and will he expedite this processing factory?

Mr. Stuart: There has been delay over the site, and that, of course, affects the cost. I will pursue this matter as rapidly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Housing Return (Discrepancy)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how an error arose in compilation of the Housing Return for Scotland, 31st March, 1952, which caused Table IV, page 6, to record housing completions by New Towns Development Corporation at 31st March last as 399, while the corresponding figures in Appendix B, page 23, column 8, add up to 391; and whether any particular housing return was itself in error.

Mr. J. Stuart: The discrepancy occurred because an earlier figure for houses completed by East Kilbride Development Corporation was corrected on page 23 but not on page 6. The discrepancy was not caused by an incorrect report from the Corporation.

Non-Traditional Houses

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the chief factors limiting Government orders for non-traditional housing, such as the order of 3,000 Weir houses; and whether the most important of these is the net shortage of suitable home-grown timber, the cost of importing timber from Colonial and Commonwealth sources or the lack of currency for purchase of non-Sterling timber.

Mr. J. Stuart: The chief factor is scarcity of currency for the purchase of softwood from non-Sterling countries.

Glenrothes Development Corporation

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new houses have been completed by the Glenrothes Development Corporation to the latest convenient date; and to what extent the building programme is being held up by shortage of labour.

Mr. J. Stuart: By 30th June, 107 new houses had been completed by the Glenrothes Development Corporation. There has been a substantial increase in recent months in the number of men employed on house-building in the new town, which the Corporation expect to be reflected in an increased output of new houses in the future.

Additional Allocations

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to allocate more houses to local authorities where they can show that they have additional requirements because of the large number of miners rows in their area in a dilapidated condition and unfit for human occupation.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am prepared to authorise additional instalments of houses in any district where I am satisfied that progress with the authorisations already made justifies such a course.

Mr. Manuel: Does that reply mean that additional allocations will be given, because of the over-weight of unfit houses, where the local authorities are building up to the requirements laid down in the allocations this year? Does he understand that in many areas in Scotland there are these old rows, although no coal is being extracted in many of these areas today, and it is in respect of these areas that my Question is directed?

Mr. Stuart: I understand the point and assure the hon. Member that where the authorities are getting on well with their allocations, we will always consider this.

Cement Supplies

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that supplies of cement

are now adequate for the housing programme.

Mr. J. Stuart: There are occasional local shortages of cement, but, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, I am doing everything possible to overcome them.

ECONOMIC SITUATION (RE-ARMAMENT PROGRAMME)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Prime Minister what changes will be made in the re-armament programme and expenditure on defence arising from the new policy of absolute priority for the balance of payments problem.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): There will no doubt be an opportunity before the House rises for an exchange of views on the economic situation, including the aspects to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week that exports must now come first and foremost, does not this imply a change in the re-armament programme by a diversion of engineering products from armaments to exports?

The Prime Minister: I think that point is covered by my answer.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister not agree that all experience shows how unwise it is to speak of absolute priorities or overriding priorities, and that it is far better to deal with these difficult problems of balance through an allocation system such as we had in the war?

The Prime Minister: Those are issues of a very general character about which variants of opinion may well be tolerated.

ATOMIC ESPIONAGE (PRESS ARTICLES)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Prime Minister whether the newspaper articles recently written by Mr. Alan Moorehead, a former Public Relations Officer of the Ministry of Defence, were submitted for security check before publication.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a change from yesterday.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Do not recent events suggest that the standard of security at the Ministry of Defence, from the Minister downwards, is relatively low?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be a rather inferior type of jibe.

KOREAN MILITARY OPERATIONS (STATEMENTS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions, since November, 1951, on which a statement has been made to the House referring to military operations in Korea, the text of the proposed statement has been previously shown to General Omar Bradley for comment.

The Prime Minister: The parts of the statement made to the House by the Minister of State last Tuesday which referred to the progress of military operations were shown to General Bradley as a matter of courtesy, in view of the talks which he and the Minister of Defence had had a few days before in Washington.

Mr. Shinwell Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my question, which was: On how many occasions since November, 1951, has a statement been given to this House regarding military operations which has been vetted by General Omar Bradley?

The Prime Minister: There have been only two statements on the course of military operations in Korea since we came into office. The first was the day before the Minister of Defence went to Korea, and the other last week. There was no consultation with General Bradley before the first statement was made, because no conversations had taken place between them.

Mr. Shinwell: Then I understand the answer is "No."

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

COMMONWEALTH ECONOMIC RELATIONS

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the mutual difficulties created by members of the British Commonwealth endeavouring each to preserve its own separate balance of payments, if

he will suggest to the other free and equal members of the Commonwealth that there should be placed on the agenda of the forthcoming Economic Conference a proposal for the economic federation of the Commonwealth, involving one customs union, one currency and one external balance of payments account.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not regard the hon. Member's proposals as practicable

Mr. Beswick: But does not the Prime Minister agree that it is quite intolerable that different people, including himself, should at different times have considered it practicable to federate with almost all states of this globe save with those with people of our own flesh and blood and who speak our own language; and if economic stability and political influence is what we seek, does he not think it is time that we discussed the difficulties and advantages of this proposition?

The Prime Minister: I have never considered federation with approval, as far as I am concerned personally. Many other forms of unity and of association are possible and valuable, but an economic federation of the Commonwealth would not be possible without a political federation, and would involve the surrender by every Commonwealth Government, including the United Kingdom Government, of such a wide range of economic powers that every member of the Commonwealth would cease to be a sovereign State. Even if the United Kingdom were prepared to face this possibility, it is clear that other Governments of the Commonwealth would not.

Mr. Usborne: While it may be admitted that the Governments of these countries are at present opposed to the concept of federation, has the Prime Minister any reason to suppose that the peoples of these countries would not in fact welcome this form of political integration, which would be greatly to their advantage?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the closer we come to each other by natural processes the better, but I should think it would be a very great danger to try to set up an economic and political federation of all the Commonwealth, and I believe quite impracticable, at any rate in any period which I should be likely to be concerned with.

Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the principle of federalism in relation to the Commonwealth but is in favour of it so far as Western Europe is concerned?

The Prime Minister: I do not myself conceive that federalism is immediately possible within the Commonwealth. I have never been in favour of it in Europe, and I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman when he visited Strasbourg, and was such a distinguished success there, did not notice some of the fundamental facts.

Mr. Beswick: When the Prime Minister talks of natural processes, does he not think the natural process within the Commonwealth should now be towards a tighter association of the type I have indicated; and does he not appreciate that the very looseness of the association of which we are so proud can lead in the future as easily towards disintegration as it has lead to development in the past?

The Prime Minister: I think we might just as easily do harm by trying to proceed to rigid formal measures of unity before opinion was ripe enough for that as do harm by proceeding with caution.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the Prime Minister give some indication of what he means when he uses the term "natural processes," on which he seems to depend for the closer integration which is desired?

The Prime Minister: I think the English speaking parts of the Commonwealth are drawing steadily together with every year that passes, and we hope that similar beneficial reactions will gradually occur more outside those limits.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the

parts of "Britain Strong and Free," which set out Conservative Party policy on the Commonwealth in the Election has now been abandoned?

The Prime Minister: Nothing that we set out in our statement of policy before the Election has been abandoned, and we all look forward to the moment when we shall be able to ram red meat down the throats of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to threaten violence to hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the violence was metaphorical.

BILL PRESENTED

TRANSPORT BILL

"to require the British Transport Commission to dispose of the property held by them for the purposes of the part of their undertaking which is carried on through the Road Haulage Executive; to amend the law relating to the carriage of goods by road and to provide for a levy, for the benefit of the said Commission and for other purposes, on motor vehicles used on roads; to provide for the re-organisation of the railways operated by the said Commission and to amend the law relating to the powers, duties and composition of the said Commission; to repeal certain provisions of the Transport Act, 1947, and to amend other provisions thereof; to amend section six of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on the Housing Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the

provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 206.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(INCREASES IN EXCHEQUER, ETC., CONTRIBUTIONS AND SUMS CREDITED TO HOUSING REPAIRS ACCOUNTS.)

3.53 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out "eight pounds," and to insert "six pounds five shillings."
This Amendment seeks to reduce the amount in the housing repairs account from the £8 provided in the Bill to £6 5s. The Minister will no doubt be aware that he has received representations on the basis of the Amendment. I would apply the effect of the Amendment to the Bill, as it affects all the housing authorities in the country.
I am aware that the figure in the Bill was arrived at in consultation with associations representing local authorities throughout the country, but it cannot possibly be anything like the average figure. The last figures provided by the housing authorities of the amounts placed by them in the repairs account show that those amounts vary from £4 to £21. I am taking the figures from the statistics for 1950–51 issued by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. In Carlisle, £6 5s. is at present being placed in the repairs account. It has been at that figure for 12 months only, having been raised then from a lower figure.
Under the 1936 Act, the Minister had power to vary the strict operation of the figure placed in the Bill if he was satisfied that the amount to be credited to the housing repairs account by a local authority was sufficient for the purpose for which it was carried. The point that must exercise the minds of officers concerned with this matter on the housing authorities is this: on what basis does the Minister arrive at or justify his discretion in connection with the figure of £8?
What kind of a case must a housing authority make to the Minister? Would the Minister consider, if a repairs account had a sufficient amount in it to

represent an expenditure of £12 or £10 per annum for everyone of its council houses, that that was a fair basis for exercising his discretion? At the present moment, housing authorities have no means of ascertaining the basis upon which the Minister would exercise his discretion.
At this moment, the amount per council house in Carlisle represents £10 per annum. If the £8 referred to in the Bill comes into operation at the date provided, 1st April, 1952, local authorities who are in the same position as Carlisle and who are not now making the minimum provision laid down in the Bill, will obviously be unable to provide for this increase, either by an increase of rates at the beginning of the municipal year or by an increase of rents. I should be very much obliged if the Minister would deal with this special case, which is worthy of consideration.
I am well aware that to many housing authorities the figure in the Amendment will appear ridiculous, notably to a housing authority which is spending £21 per annum on each of its council houses. Yet all of us must know that practice and custom in various districts varies a great deal. In the southern part of the country tenants appear to expect the housing authorities to do everything in the way of internal and external decoration and a good deal of repairs. I have heard of cases where, if the washer on a lap needs attention or a pantry window is broken, an immediate message is sent to the repairs depôt of the housing authority.
That certainly does not operate in the northern districts so far as council houses are concerned. It is also the case that many tenants of privately-owned houses as well as council houses in the North of England never have internal decorations done by the landlord. Indeed many of those tenants would object strongly to any landlord telling them what kind of paper or decoration should be used in their homes; they much prefer to undertake their own decorations, and certainly would not accept any proposal which might be made by the maintenance depôts of the local authorities.
That goes for a great many of the amenities in the homes provided by the various housing authorities throughout the country. For instance, Ascot water heaters and electric heaters are fairly


common in the council houses provided in the South of England but not in the North. Again, the provisions for space heating and cooking in the South are totally different from those in the North. That is probably due to the fact that in many areas in the North the housing authorities are providing houses in close proximity to the coal fields, where fuel is abundant and fairly cheap. Therefore many housewives much prefer a kitchen range which can be fed by coal and which will give them all the cooking and heating facilities they need.
I am making these points because they are all reflected in the repairs account of the local authority. The more electric, gas and other gadgets are available in the homes provided by housing authorities in the South of England, quite obviously the higher will be their maintenance costs. There will thus be fewer complaints from tenants of council houses in the North of England, who are not receiving what might be termed the advantages in council houses in the South, because those people are much too independent to rely upon the maintenance depôts of the local authority.
Another point which might explain the wide variation in repairs costs is that repairs funds were built up during the war to a high level because neither labour nor materials were available on which to spend that money in maintaining the properties of the housing authorities. So in large housing authorities especially there were repairs funds that, by 1946, 1947, and in some cases 1948, had reached enormous sums.
What happened to those large repairs funds? Just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House at times has looked around for funds to raid, so the chairman of a finance committee of a local authority is tempted when he finds that the repairs fund has reached enormous heights. Thus there are available means whereby such a contribution made by a local authority can be reduced in order to reduce that large fund.
Another danger presented itself at that time and we are seeing the effects of it even now in 1952. Those large repairs funds were used by some housing authorities for the establishment in each of their housing estates of a maintenance depot. May I describe some of the things that follow from such a development?

In certain cases maintenance depots on local authority housing estates mean new premises, new stores, a superintendent, administrative and clerical staff and inspectors, apart from the tradesmen employed, such as foremen, painters, joiners, electricians and plumbers. In each of those housing areas there has been built up a little kingdom of the superintendent, maintenance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that his Amendment is fairly narrow. It is only a matter of the House deciding between £8 and £6 5s. I find that what be is saying is in a sense relevant, but he must not go too much into the organisation of local authorities for conducting the business of repairs.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am much obliged, Sir, and quite obviously I cannot develop that point. My main purpose in drawing attention to the development of the maintenance schemes of local housing authorities was to point out to the Minister the need that exists for an examination of the difference between an expenditure of £4 per house per annum, on the one hand, and an expenditure of £21 per house per annum, on the other hand.
4.0 p.m.
The Minister ought to be able to make this differentiation for a city like Carlisle—there are many other housing authorities in precisely the same position, whose housing department is concerned to deal with its houses on the basis of central maintenance, whose stores are centralised and whose transport to and from the estates is reduced to a minimum. In places like that, there is an obvious need for a difference between the average and the proposed figure, which is considered to be fantastic in the example I have instanced, in relation to a housing authority whose repair and maintenance problem is totally different from that which exists elsewhere.
The Minister ought to be able this afternoon to give the assurance that where a local authority has made no provision from April of this year to meet this new charge, he will use his powers under Section 131 of the 1936 Act so that local authorities are spared the need for making what is considered to be an unnecessary provision under the Bill. I hope that


the Minister can safeguard the position of housing authorities in that way and that he will be able to give the assurance for which my local authority has asked.
My second point concerns the variations in the cost of repairs. I ask the Minister to consider giving some real help and guidance to authorities whose expenditure on repairs is of the lower order to which I have referred. Some guidance could be forthcoming from the Department, after an inquiry which the Minister's technical officers might hold, as to some reason for this enormous variation. If the Minister could assist housing authorities by giving them guidance as to the standard of maintenance for local authority houses, he would be helping them immensely.
To summarise, I ask the Minister for an assurance that local authorities who do not need the additional sum will not be forced to make this provision; in other words, that the right hon. Gentleman will exercise his discretion and his powers under the 1936 Act. Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable to hold a technical inquiry on the enormous variation in cost of repairs as between one housing authority and another, so that guidance and real help can be given to a housing authority to lay down standards for the maintenance of the properties for which it is responsible?

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) has moved the Amendment in a very moderate way and with some interesting reflections. I hope he will not think me discourteous if I do not go into some of the wider aspects that he raised, partly because I take note of Mr. Speaker's warning, and I should not like to stray from the strict matter of the Amendment.
As the hon. Member knows, there has always been a fixed minimum sum which has to be placed to this account. The only question is what that sum should be. There have, of course, always been variations from one part of the country to another, and from one authority to

another. Nevertheless, since we have to deal—as in the subsidy itself, so with the conditions surrounding it—with averages, we have to take a fixed figure and to work upon that—there is no other way of doing it—giving power to the Minister in certain conditions, if he is satisfied, to approve of variations which might be suggested. Generally speaking, however, there must be, and always has been, a fixed figure. It was £4; it is now proposed that it should be £8. This reserve is necessary in order to make sure that the heavier cost of repairs, as it may become in later years, is adequately provided for and that there is a really sound financial basis.
The experience of authorities varies. As the hon. Member rightly said, many local authorities are allocating larger sums than either the present statutory £4 or the proposed statutory figure of £8. Sometimes it is as much as £13 for new houses, and possibly more for old houses. The proposed minimum of £8 was one of the matters which I and my officials discussed with the associations. We took it as a fair figure, and it was agreed without any dissenting voice.
There is another aspect also. The subsidy calculations assume a figure of £12 per house to cover both repairs and management. It has always been accepted that the repairs and maintenance accounted for about three-quarters, and that one-quarter went in management. Therefore, if £12 is the correct figure, £8 is the right figure to include for the repairs and maintenance. If the hon. Member argues that it is too high a figure, he is really asking me to re-open the negotiations and not to give as much as £12, but to give some figure of which his lower figure would be the proper proportion. At this stage it would be too late in the day for me to do that, nor would I be very popular with local authorities if I were to press that argument to its full logical conclusion.

Mr. James MacColl: I may have misunderstood the Minister's calculation. He said "£12" and "three-quarters." Should not the figure be £9 instead of £8?

Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry—the fraction should be "two-thirds." We have only put in a minimum figure. We have given a little latitude, but we have


said that we must insist upon the two-thirds, although we allow some variation.
The hon. Member is asking me to go as low as £6 5s. I do not think that that would be the right way to deal with it. The best thing is to continue with the minimum and to have it related to the agreed new figure of £12, and then for me to exercise the discretion which is given to me and to my successors under the 1936 Act, in the event of the repairs account being more than sufficient, or appearing to be built up to be more than sufficient, for future needs. In that event, directions could be given for the reduction, or even for the suspension, of annual contributions and for the disposal of any unnecessary moneys standing to the credit of the account.
I will certainly look into the wider problem the hon. Member has suggested that I should take up with the local authorities, but so far as this Amendment is concerned, I hope that he will regard the provision in the Bill, as I think the local authorities and their representatives do, as a fair all-round arrangement and a logical consequence of the larger sum upon which the larger subsidy is calculated.

Mr. Hargreaves: May I ask a question arising out of the assurance that discretion will be exercised in certain circumstances? Can the Minister give some indication as to what basis will be used for the exercise of his discretion in the case of a local authority which at the moment is spending £6 5s. per annum and has in the fund at present £10 per house?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member knows that in the short time I have held office I have tried to give as much local discretion as I could, and I believe in that. At the same time, I have a duty, and my successors have a duty, just as the local authorities of the day have a duty to protect their ratepayers and their future ratepayers. I therefore think it would be very difficult to say here what precise sum or precise situation will enable me or any other Minister exercising a purely administrative function to allow for some reduction. That will be taken into account with the character of the house, the conditions, and the whole situation. That right of release, as it were, does exist, and I think the House would be well advised to keep the principle of a fixed minimum and to

rely upon any administrative method if it were found proper and reasonable to make some relief.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I intervene to make the position of most of my hon. Friends clear on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), in moving the Amendment, has given rise to a short and interesting debate, but whereas we can all agree that it was an important little debate, we would not agree with the figure he suggested.
As he and the Minister pointed out, the housing figures shown throughout the country and the sums allocated to the repairs fund vary and are very much lower in the north than they are in the south, due to the difference in customs in regard to decorating and the liability of the tenant. Since there is this variation and since there is a minimum figure, the question arises of what the figure should be. The Minister says that £8 is the figure that the local authorities agreed. Because that is so, we think it is the best figure which could be arrived at, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2.—(CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS FOR HOUSES OCCUPIED UNDER CONTRACTS OF SERVICE.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out "For the purposes of."
The two following Amendments in lines 6 and 7 might be considered with this Amendment.
The object of subsection (2) of the Clause is to amend subsection (1, b) of Section 23 of the Housing Act, 1949, so as to permit the payment of grant to a person other than the local authority for the improvement of a house which is or may later be occupied by a member of the agricultural population under a contract of service. The wording is faulty as it stands because, if the purchaser of the house from the applicant for the grant were to put an agricultural employee under a contract of service into occupation, it would be a breach of the conditions as the Clause stands.
It might for the convenience of the House if I read what the Clause will be if the three Amendments are accepted. It would read:
Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Housing Act, 1949 (which requires that a dwelling in respect of which an improvement grant has been made under section twenty of that Act must be let or kept available for letting except when occupied as mentioned therein) shall not apply to a dwelling which is for the time being occupied by a member of the agricultural population in pursuance of a contract of service.
The words which we now have in the subsection would penalise a purchaser of the house which had been improved if it were subsequently let to an agricultural employee under a contract of service. This is a drafting Amendment putting right the rather inaccurate wording, especially of the last line of the subsection.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: The Parliamentary Secretary was not very clear on this matter. I think it was rather difficult for the House clearly to follow what is intended. Superficially, the words would seem to indicate that he is excluding a tied cottage from the benefits of an improvement grant under the 1949 Act. In any case, I see no reason why a tied cottage cannot be included within the conditions of subsection (1, b) of Section 23 of the 1949 Act.
In the negotiations between farmers and farm workers for assessing the basis of wages, an allowance is always made which is more or less an equivalent value of rent which the farm worker would enjoy through living in a tied cottage. Although we are talking about tied cottages, we must remember that the rent value of the cottage to the farm worker is a factor which is always taken into consideration when negotiating wage standards. I cannot see why the Minister wants to take the tied cottage out of the conditions of subsection (1, b) of Section 23 of the 1949 Act.
Is it that the Minister does not desire the improvement grant under the 1949 Act to be made available to a tied cottage? Superficially, the words seem to indicate that, but I think that would be quite wrong. The right hon. Gentleman ought to make a clearer exposition of what he is trying to do in regard to these words, because they seem to be unsatisfactory.

Mr. Albert Evans: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), I find myself not very enlightened by what the Parliamentary Secretary said in regard to these three Amendments. As I understand it, a grant having been made under the 1949 Act, the Minister proposes by this provision to relieve the person who has received that grant from some of the conditions laid down in the 1949 Act. He proposes to relieve the person receiving the improvement grant from the conditions laid down in subsection (1, b) of Section 23 of that Act.
If that is the intention, it seems to follow that if paragraph (b) is to be waived where the occupant is an agricultural worker, consequently paragraph (c), which deals with the amount of rent which can be charged, likewise must be waived. As I understand the Section of the 1949 Act, paragraph (c) is consequential upon paragraph (b) and does not operate if paragraph (b) is waived. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would make it clear exactly what are his intentions in the three Amendments with which we are now dealing.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: To me the intention of the Minister is quite plain. He says that if something is not done here, the farmer will be penalised, but in order to prevent the farmer from being penalised he proposes to penalise the farmworker who goes into the house. That is quite clearly the intention of these Amendments which the Minister has tabled.
I cannot understand why we should not leave the position as it was under the earlier Act. What the previous Government said in that Act was that the improvement grant should be made payable on condition that a tenancy was created. The Minister now wants to take away that protection and to subject every farm worker who occupies a cottage improved under this Bill either to summary eviction or eviction in a very short time. I wish to be quite blunt about this matter. That is the intention of the series of Amendments which we are now discussing.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: It has been interesting to hear the three contributions made by hon. Members


opposite, because none of them seems to have been in complete harmony with one another. Lack of understanding on the part of hon. Members opposite is a common denominator that runs through their contributions to most debates.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who normally speaks with such lucidity on these subjects, deprecated the Minister's intention, if I understood him aright, because he thought that the effect of the Amendment was that a house occupied under a contract of service would not be eligible for grant if this Amendment were agreed to. I am glad to see that he indicates that my understanding of what he said is correct. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) also expressed disapprobation of the Minister, but on a precisely contrary interpretation of the effect of the Amendment.

Mr. Sparks: May I clear up that point? Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in what I said. I was referring to an existing tied cottage the owner of which makes an application for an improvement grant and as a result of that has to abide by certain conditions, for 20 years, that the house will be available for letting purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North referred to a different case in which an improvement grant has been given in respect of a house but after that the tenancy is changed and the house becomes a tied cottage. There are many points involved in this question.

Mr. Walker-Smith: There cannot be a change of tenancy in regard to a service occupancy as the term is used in Section 23 of the 1949 Act. Hon. Members are making the mistake of confusing an agricultural tenancy with a service occupancy. Section 23 deals with the question of a service occupancy, and the Amendment now before the House also deals with a service occupancy. Where there is no tenancy there can be no change in tenancy. With great respect, I think that both hon. Members are guilty of some degree of misapprehension in regard to the effect of the Amendment.

Mr. Gooch: There was no misunderstanding on my part. If there was, let the Minister say so.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Front

Bench opposite do not agree."] This may be geographically the Front Bench, but not in the Parliamentary sense of that term. I am merely dealing with the speeches that have been made. Quite clearly the Parliamentary Secretary did not direct himself to those three speeches because they had not been made at the time when he spoke.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) made the point, as I understood it, that the Amendment ought to deal not only with subsection (1, b) but also with subsection (1, c).

Mr. A. Evans: I asked whether, if paragraph (b) was waived in the case of agricultural employees, paragraph (c) must not also be waived, because paragraph (c) is a consequence of the operation of paragraph (b).

Mr. Walker-Smith: I was coming to that point. With respect, I do not think paragraph (c) is so because it is concerned with cases where rent is payable for agricultural tenancy in the approved sense of the term. Here we are concerned with service occupancy where there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and no rent is paid. That is why no Amendment is required to paragraph (c) in consequence of this Amendment.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: If there is any doubt on these benches or the benches opposite, it is surely due to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary moved this Amendment in such a short speech and in such language as made it impossible to be clear exactly what was meant.
Having re-read the Amendments as this debate was proceeding, I think it is fairly clear what they do. They are taking away the protection which under the earlier Act the agricultural worker received if he lived in a house in respect of which an improvement grant had been paid. If a farmer improved a cottage under the earlier Act and received an improvement grant to help him with the cost, that cottage became one which was un-tied, to use a phrase familiar in agricultural districts.
This alteration will, in language much more involved and difficult to understand than that of the original provision, remove that protection. It is as well that


the country, and particularly the agricultural districts of the country, should realise that that is what is really happening. We are removing the protection against all the indignities of eviction which our agricultural workers who live in tied cottages have so often suffered. By this Bill we are removing that protection not only in the case of newly-built houses but in those cases where an improvement grant has been given in respect of a house because the farmer has done something to improve it.
That may satisfy the Minister, but I am sure that it will not satisfy anyone in the agricultural industry, particularly the workers, who feel very strongly about this question. I hope, and I am pretty sure, that the people in our villages and rural districts will remember this as well as the other things which this Government have done in order to help their friends among the farming interests.

Mr. G. Lindgren: The words on the Order Paper undoubtedly make clearer and define the intention of Her Majesty's Government in respect of this Clause. During the Committee stage we had a very long discussion, and it would be unfair to prolong the discussion on these Amendments or take advantage of them to repeat the extensive discussion which took place during that stage of the Bill.
I wish, however, to reinforce the argument which has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). Let no one be under any misapprehension: this Clause and these Amendments take away the protection which was given under the 1949 Act to agricultural workers who lived in houses in respect of which a grant for reconditioning was received.
4.30 p.m.
Let me make it perfectly clear that we are desirous that any and every agricultural house that is worthy of improvement and which it is necessary to improve should be improved. We have no objection to the finances of the Government or the resources of the Government being made available to the owner of a house to enable those facilities to be granted. We think the agricultural worker is as much entitled to a bathroom and to other

amenities in his house as any other worker in any urban district.
What we object to, and why we have objected to this Clause, is the principle of the Clause. We shall not divide on these Amendments, because they merely give effect to the principle already decided, but what we object to is the principle that public money should be used to improve private property, and that then that private property should be made into a service cottage, in which the tenant is at the mercy of the employer if he loses his employment. It is that principle to which we objected and which we debated in Committee. We are still against it, and we are very disappointed indeed that the Government should have taken away the protection given to the farm workers in the provisions of Section 23 of the 1949 Act.

Mr. Marples: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Welling borough (Mr. Lindgren). He has put the case very fairly. We on these benches have always recognised that the Opposition do not like the principle of this particular Clause. The Amendments we are now discussing do not affect that principle in any way. They are purely re-drafting. We should incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we had a wide debate on what, after all, are narrow drafting points.
The 1949 Act prevents an applicant for an improvement grant from putting in a service occupier; he must put in a tenant; if he puts in a service occupier, and he is receiving a grant, he will lose it. That is the position under the 1949 Act. The Bill is to change that, and that is what this subsection does. It has always been admitted that it does. It has not been denied in the discussions between the two parties. However, this subsection was defective in drafting, because it failed to do one thing—to allow the purchaser of a house on which a grant was being paid to put in a service occupier without jeopardising the grant.
If an agricultural employee under a contract of service is in occupation of the house at present and the grant be paid, when a purchaser of that house comes along—and a purchaser may come along because of the death of the original owner, for instance—there will be a breach of condition, as the subsection now stands, and a proportionate part of the


grant will become repayable to the local authority. These three Amendments, taken together, are simply to clear up that drafting error, and they make no alteration in any way of the policy which the Government have set out clearly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 6, leave out from the beginning, to "by," and insert:
shall not apply to a dwelling which is for the time being occupied.

In line 7, leave out from "service," to the end of line 8.—[Mr. Marples.]

Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(3) No contribution shall be payable under section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, in respect of a house completed after the seventeenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six, for any year during which the house is at any time occupied in pursuance of a contract of service by a member of the agricultural population unless the condition set out in subsection (4) of this section, so far as applicable to the house at any time during that year, is complied with: and in relation to any dwelling in respect of which an improvement grant has been made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under section twenty of the Housing Act, 1949, being a dwelling which is for the time being occupied as aforesaid, section twenty-three of the said Act of 1949 shall have effect as if that condition were included among the conditions specified in subsection (1) of that section.
(4) The condition referred to in subsection (3) of this section is that if the contract is determined—

(a) by less than four weeks' notice given by the employer;
(b) by dismissal of the employee without notice; or
(c) by the death of either party;
the employer or his personal representative will permit the employee (or, in the case of his death, any person residing with him at his death) to continue to occupy the house or dwelling free of charge from the determination of the contract until the expiration of a period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the notice is given or, if the contract is determined otherwise than by notice, with the date on which it is determined.
(5) In this section "occupied" means occupied otherwise than by a tenant; and "occupy" shall be construed accordingly.
This Amendment arises from the very considerable discussion which we had in Committee, when I undertook to see whether some of the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) and by other hon. Members could be met.

As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who has just spoken on another series of Amendments, has said perfectly frankly and correctly, there has been considerable debate in Committee on the whole principle of this Clause. What this Clause does is to extend the power to give improvement grants to a type of cottage which is occupied upon a contract of service. In the public mind I think there is a good deal of confusion as to the precise meaning of "tied cottage."

Mr. Gooch: Not in my mind.

Mr. Macmillan: But the hon. Gentleman represents a comparatively small part of the public. I have often heard, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House must often have heard, tied cottages and houses generally described as cottages which are held under restricted tenancies. I venture to say that, although hon. Gentlemen opposite are very learned about these matters, they, too, must often have heard people talking of tied cottages in the broad sense, without a clear distinction between a cottage let upon a restricted tenancy and a cottage let upon a contract of service.
Of course, a very wide number are let upon a restricted tenancy. The railways, the mines, a very large number of similar industrial undertakings, have houses let on a restricted tenancy; and in the Act which we are now in this Clause amending a former Government allowed grants to be paid in respect of cottages let under restricted tenancies. What we are now doing is to extend them to the second sort of—and, perhaps, more correctly termed tied—cottages, let under service contracts. That is what we do—extend grants to cottages let under a service agreement, a contract of service.
What was the argument which was developed and strongly urged in Committee? It was that it was a terrible thing that public money should be given to improve or to build cottages from which the occupier could, on the termination of his service, in law, although seldom in fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—be evicted at a week's notice. That was the argument.
I think there was general agreement—I am trying to put this fairly—in the debate that, in fact, farmers had been


urged by their associates to follow a line of good conduct, a code of good conduct, that had been built up; that, in point of fact, very few evictions of this type took place; that the farmers had been asked to follow and had operated in practice a system of going to the court, of giving notice of at least a month as a minimum; in fact, operating as if this type of tied cottage were a type of cottage let upon a restricted tenancy, and acting as the National Coal Board or the nationalised railways or others would do, if it were necessary in order to work and operate their businesses, to get hold of a cottage. That was the argument, and an appeal was made to me to see whether we could do something to bring the position of these two more closely together.
I claim that that is the purpose of the Amendment, and although we do not alter the law—for this, after all, is a housing subsidy Bill, and we cannot alter the law as to the service cottages—I do say that if public money is to be granted, if applicants for grants are to build or if they are to improve, the general code of conduct accepted and operated over a vast number of these cases shall be one of the legal conditions which must be observed if the grant is to be given.
That is what this Amendment does. It at any rate tries to meet what I think was the spirit of our discussions, and I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend and to other hon. Members on both sides. It does try to meet the spirit of the problem by saying that the owner farmer or landlord who wishes to get the benefit of an improvement grant or a capital grant for this type of property must observe parallel conditions to those observed where the property is on a contract of service.
I claim that this Amendment is a fair and honest attempt to bridge this gulf between the two sides of the House, and I hope that it will receive general approval, because I think it goes a long way to bring the practice, the facts and the law into general relation. If this Amendment is agreed to, I believe that any kind of grievance will be removed, and we shall have the great advantage that those who live in these cottages will get from this Bill the advantage of having their cottages improved and their conditions bettered.
I have always said, as I ventured to say in Committee, that if we were to ask Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Brown, who live in one of these cottages, whether she felt so bitterly about living there, or whether she would rather have a new stove and the roof mended, she would choose what this Bill gives her in the way of improvement. At the same time, if the conditions are brought up to what would be the legal and enforceable conditions of the great range of cottages let upon restricted tenancies, I should have thought the House might have felt that it was a good piece of work and a pretty reasonable settlement of a long-standing problem.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (4, a), to leave out "four weeks" and to insert "three months."
I agree with the Minister that we are not trying to amend the general law about tied cottages, contracts of service, restricted tenancies and the rest of it, but I take this opportunity of saying that I am no part of the Government but he is, and the general law needs badly amending on this, a far more urgent matter than many of those brought forward by the Government at present.
At the moment we are engaged solely with the question of the conditions upon which public funds shall be used for the benefit of certain houses—if I may put it in that way—and therefore for the benefit, not only of Mrs. Jones, of whom we have just heard, but also of the landlord and owner of the house. The Minister has said, if I understood him rightly, that he is disposed to agree—I hope he will not mind my adding "at long last"—that public funds should not be used in this way unless it can be shown that the owner of the house has not merely conformed to the law but has conformed to the standards of decent behaviour which alone entitle him to this contribution from his fellow men.
I do not think this Amendment goes nearly far enough, and I will tell the House why. I begin, not by any re-statement at length of the differences which we heard just now, but simply by saying that, not quite in all cases, but in most cases decent behaviour is not to turn a man out of a tied cottage at all but to treat him as though he were in a controlled cottage and entitled to the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts, apart


from the question of agricultural executive committee certificates, with which I am not now dealing.
That is, I believe, the real standard of decent behaviour, but for the moment we are debarred from that and are now considering what is to happen on the assumption that, in respect of some tied cottages—to use a loose word—there shall be some measure of protection for the tenant or, to put it more accurately, some standard of decent behaviour before the landlord gets assistance from public funds, and as a condition of that assistance.
4.45 p.m.
What is suggested in this case is, broadly speaking, that the man in occupation shall be allowed to stay there for four weeks. That seems to me to be wholly insufficient. Let me say why. First of all, I think we have got to realise that one of the main faults in the law of this country is that there is a moral right to have more than the legal notice after long service. It is quite true that it does not affect the legal notice, but there are men who have been working for, say, an industrial firm for 10 or 20 years who can, so far as the law goes, be dismissed at a week's notice today.
The laws of this country are good so far as they recognise, and continue to recognise, what everybody in the country would accept as a moral right, that a man of that sort ought to be entitled to keep his job if possible, and if he is going to be sacked to have a great deal more than the week's notice that may be all he is entitled to at law. Since we are now discussing not, on the Minister's own suggestion, the strict legal rights but the moral code that is to be conformed with if a man is to get assistance from public funds, I cannot regard four weeks as very much better than one week or than no notice at all.
The history of this matter is that, though the voice is the voice of the right hon. Gentleman and the Amendment is the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, three years ago now the National Farmers' Union recognised that there was something very wrong about the whole business of tied cottages to the extent that a man could be turned out the moment he lost his job, whatever the cause of his losing it, without any notice at all. It was in recognition of that pretty obvious proposition, which most

people other than farmers had recognised a long time ago, that they proposed to make some arrangement with their members with a view to getting four weeks' notice. That is where this period of four weeks comes from.
Let me say at once that neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) would say for a moment that farmers are a particularly wicked or malevolent class of the community. We do not say anything of the sort. I have the greatest respect for most of the farmers I have met, and I think that most farmers I have met will do their best to be fair.

Mr. Gooch: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mitchison: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend agrees with me, but that is not the point in this case. When a man is being turned out of a tied agricultural cottage there is bound to be a conflict of two perfectly reasonable interests, and there may be a very unreasonable solution. The farmer wants to get on with the work of his farm, and he thinks it would either be necessary or convenient to have the cottage at the very earliest moment for what is, after all, a perfectly reasonable purpose. That is his interest.
But the interest of the man in the cottage is even more vital, and one which must appeal even more to this House than that of the farmer. For what faces him—and we must recognise it—is that he may be turned out at short notice, or with no notice, and may find himself literally without anywhere at all to go. It is not merely a question of the Mr. and Mrs. Jones whom the Minister mentioned just now. The problem of the tied cottage goes well beyond that. These cottages may be, and often are, sub-let. That perhaps is not the right word—sublicensed if the House wishes. There may be some other family living there who are turned out because of nothing whatever that they have done and for nothing which has any connection with their affairs; but simply because of some difference of opinion, or some other reason, for which the occupant of the cottage is turned out.
I can assure the Minister, and I do not believe he would deny it, that these cases of eviction from tied cottages sometimes mean grievous hardship. It does not


really matter very much whether there are 100 cases or 1,000 cases or even 5,000 cases. In this House we ought, when considering as we are now considering, the employment of public funds, not to sanction their employment in any case where the cottage in question will be the subject over which a case of grievous hardship may arise.
The question is whether four weeks is long enough for the purpose, and I would put it in two ways. First of all, does any hon. Member really think that, with all the rural communities in this country, if a person is turned out of a cottage and has four weeks' notice only to make other arrangements, he can get another house? I cannot help feeling that the only honest answer to that would be, "We know perfectly well that in most rural communities they would want a great deal more than four weeks' notice to do it." An hon. Member opposite made some observation which I failed to hear. Perhaps he would be good enough to stand up and repeat it.

Commander J. W. Maitland: I beg pardon of the hon. and learned Member. The observation I made was that that also was the same during the past seven years.

Mr. Mitchison: I am not going into that kind of question now. It would take us well outside the limits of this debate. I would simply say that we have had a housing problem in this country for a very long time indeed, and we have only recently begun to recognise and face it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—yes, recently, since the last war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Since October."] and I do not believe that the right hon. Friend of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), or any other responsible Minister, would expect to solve, at any rate the rural side of the problem, to the satisfaction of everyone within a short time, or within any time in the future that we can reasonably foresee.
What we are concerned with for the moment is what is the decent thing to do with people turned out of tied cottages. We are concerned with what is decent, because the use of public funds is involved, and in that matter I will accept the criterion of the Minister. But I repeat that four weeks is not long

enough, if we take as the standard the time a man would reasonably require to re-house himself.
I would take one other test, that of the county courts up and down the country. The present position is that a service occupant whose service has ended and who is not a tenant has no legal leg to stand on. He is a trespasser, and the court cannot refuse to turn him out. It is only by that elastic stretching of the administration of justice, which is in many ways a great credit to this country, that in fact time is given in almost every case.
But I would ask the legal Members of this House, as well as other hon. Members, if it is quite fair to say that it is very rare indeed for that time to be as short as four weeks? Even if we could find a hard boiled county court judge—if I may say so with respect to them—who is prepared to turn people out at less than that time, the problem again is that where the administration of public funds is concerned, where we propose to give public money for the purpose, then surely it is not sufficient to consider the number of cases. We are entitled to say, where we are giving public money, that we will not have any cases of grievous hardship.
It is not a question of balancing the majority one way or the other. It is a question of whether public money is to be given at all in cases where grievous hardship may arise. I suggest therefore that the limit ought to be set high. I am not sure that we have gone far enough. I do not come on to the question of principle, because we have passed from that. We object just as strongly to the whole of this business now as we did half an hour ago, and 10 years ago. But if we are on this narrow question of the amount of notice to be given, then I think that three months is a very moderate, perhaps too moderate, substitution for four weeks.
I do not wish to take up too much time, but there is one other matter I will indicate to the Minister. It is true that one can draw some rather subtle legal distinctions between people who are in possession of a house by leave or licence and people who are tenants on some terms or other. But I suggest to the Minister that the meaning of "tied cottage" is perfectly clear to the ordinary


person, and corresponds to a tolerably clear legal conception; that is to say, it means a cottage from which a man can be turned out without notice when he loses his job. That would apply just as much to cottages occupied by railwaymen or iron and steel workers or miners as to cottages occupied by agricultural workers. We cannot however go into that on this Amendment, and I should be out of order if I tried to do so, for we are dealing with what is called the agricultural population.
However, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman most strongly that we must not only consider, as we are today considering, the agricultural population. There are other cases that require calm and careful consideration and which may cause just as much hardship. Speaking for myself, I have never said but that there were some cases where a tied cottage in that sense was necessary, such as some schoolmaster's houses, and so on; and I agree that there might be, and very probably are, some agricultural cases.
We ought not to leave it to the farmer to judge what is and what is not necessary. Something may be highly convenient to him, but it may not be necessary. It will require some independent investigation, perhaps a tribunal for the purpose, with instructions to decide, not which cases are highly convenient, but which cases are really necessary before we come to a solution of this question of tied cottages.
5.0 p.m.
Just as on that sort of matter we should not think it fair or right to accept merely the opinion of one side—the farmer—so on this question of four weeks' or three months' notice I suggest to the House that again we ought not merely to accept the opinion of the National Farmers' Union, however highly we may think of them. The odds are, to put the matter quite bluntly, that if the National Farmers' Union says that the time should be four weeks, then it ought to be a bit longer. They have not bought and sold pigs for nothing in that community.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
We had a lot to say on this matter during the Committee stage. I speak entirely as townsman. What we were

concerned about then, and what we are concerned about now, is that there shall appear to be something like equality of treatment between the townsman and the countryman when either is dispossessed of a house.
In my experience most county court judges, on the first application, usually grant about three months' notice before eviction. I can quote at least two county courts where that is the case. When I was mayor of a borough and cases of dispossession were brought to my notice, it was the general experience to find that three months' notice of eviction was given. The local authority even in a crowded town has a difficult enough problem. Anybody who knows the mounting housing lists in our town will realise that when someone is suddenly given three months' notice it is extremely difficult to find a house for him.
How much more difficult is it in remote and scattered country districts? We have often argued here about the necessity to keep men on the land and not to drive people from the countryside. We have argued that the urban drift should not attract them and that, generally speaking, we should make conditions such that men will not lightly turn away from agricultural occupations. It has been said that the agricultural labourer is possibly our best dollar saver.
I suggest that as a matter of equity the countryman should not be disadvantaged compared with the man who lives in a town. It is usually purely an accident whether one goes into an occupation like my own, where a service tenancy is never entered into, or whether one goes to work in the countryside where a service tenancy may be necessary. In either case, people marry and bring up families. Eviction under any conditions at all, even if it be due to the man's own fault, is a matter of great hardship to the family.
One can argue that these sort of things take place through dereliction of duty by the man concerned. Even if that were so, the man would still receive three months' notice from any county court. It seems to me that most of our difficulties arise when various classes of the community are treated differently. It is the indication of the success of any administration that it should appear to treat people fairly one with the other.
We pressed this matter during the Committee stage because we thought that there ought to be one general code of eviction for town and country. As there has been no contradiction of the fact that it is the general practice in urban communities to give three months' notice, it seems reasonable to us that a similar time should be given to the agricultural labourer.
I do not want to go too far or I shall be ruled out of order, but I should like to say that I pointed out during the Committee stage that agriculture is becoming more and more mechanised and that a different type of labour is being attracted. Numerous engineering products are used and a man may work in a garage or be employed as the driver of a tractor. Some agricultural workers might almost be described as members of the engineering community.
It seems to us that in this matter of dispossession we should attempt to ensure that the length of the notice is reasonable and humane. If it is humane to give a man three months in which to regulate his affairs if he is dispossessed in a town, I have yet to hear any argument why a lesser time should be allowed if he lives in the country.

Brigadier F. Medlicott: I am glad to have this opportunity of welcoming the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend because I had the privilege of moving in Committee a similar Amendment, the effect of which is fully carried out by the Minister's proposal. For the purpose of the record I make it clear that that Amendment was moved in Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central and not by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) and I am sure that he will be happy to have that point made plain.
Although clearly all the discussions of the general principle of the tied cottage have been within the rules of order, both here and in Committee, most of the merits of the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite have been out of place. We have had all sorts of speeches attacking the whole principle of the tied cottage. We are therefore entitled to point out in answer to the question addressed to the House a few

moments ago by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who asked whether anyone thought that one month's notice was sufficient for the occupant of a tied cottage, that hon. Members opposite thought that for six years. They permitted the existence of the law of the tied cottage without making any attempt whatever to alter or to qualify it. That is the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member, but the point is quite different. We did not allow public funds to be used for tied cottages. What we are now considering is whether, when public funds are allowed by this Government to be used for tied cottages, there should be a period of four weeks or three months for notice to the occupant.

Brigadier Medlicott: The reference to public funds may have been useful as a device from a debating point of view, but the argument submitted has been directed against the whole existence of the tied cottage as such. If the objections to the existence of that form of occupation are so profound and far-reaching as these arguments now lead us to suppose, then something ought to have been done by the previous Government, which was supported by the hon. and learned Member, during the six years when they had the opportunity but did not make use of it.
I should like to return to the question of reasonable notice, and to take up another point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman when he referred to the occasion when an agricultural worker leaves his cottage. He seemed to suggest that the only people interested in that event are the farmer and the outgoing occupier, but there is another person who is vitally interested, and he is the incoming occupier. This is one of the reasons why this whole question of the tied cottage is one upon which very diverse views are held amongst agricultural workers themselves.
When an agricultural worker obtains a fresh job, one of the attractions to him is that he will have a service cottage near to the place where he will be called upon to do his work. No examination or the question of the tied cottage is therefore complete without bearing in mind


the fact that these cottages circulate among agricultural workers themselves as a community. There may be cases of hardship when one man goes out, but we must not forget that another worker comes in to take his place and has the advantage of the accommodation that is provided.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the views of the National Farmers' Union on this question of notice, but those of us who put down our Amendment in Committee did so of our own volition, and, as far as I was concerned. I had not even seen the reference made to the matter by the National Farmers' Union. It seemed to me and to some of my hon. Friends that there was a case for some increase in the period of notice, as we were very conscious of the fact that, when the time comes when a man loses his occupation and also loses his house, that is clearly a very serious matter for him.
We gave a great deal of thought to the question of the length of notice that was needed. As the Minister himself pointed out in Committee, this is not a Bill in which it would be appropriate to make any general alteration in the law of landlord and tenant or of service occupation generally. I think that the most that could be done was to take this step, which is a step in the right direction. It may be a modest step, but, at least, it goes further than anything that has been done for many years past.
I have no doubt at all that, having regard to the way in which the Minister welcomed the proposals that we put to him, and the very sympathetic way in which he has discussed the alternatives, he has also in mind the possibility that, given time, he will be able to bring about an alteration in the general law of landlord and tenant which will take into account some of the very proper arguments which have been adduced in the course of this debate.
To increase the period of notice from no notice at all, which has been the case hitherto—it was not merely a question of a week, but of no notice at all—to four weeks, is very definitely a step in the right direction. We know, in spite of the cases which have been quoted, which have been extraordinarily few in number, that it is nearly always the practice of landlords and farmers to go to the court in order

to have the assurance of judicial examination of the position and official authorisation before the final step is taken and the occupier has to go.
I regard the Minister's amendment as a complete and ample fulfilment of the undertaking which the Minister gave during the Committee stage, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

5.15 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: This is a very narrow point, and I shall not detain the House more than a few moments, but I wish to appeal to the Minister to realise that possibly three months is not a long time.
The background of this matter, which makes it easier to understand why it is possible for hon. Members like the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) to feel that four weeks is a step forward, as compared with the fact that no time at all was allocated at one time, is that we have been accustomed, where the land is concerned, to realise that, though it is long ago, the farm worker was a chattel who was bound to his land. Indeed, there was a time when he could not move from a particular place, and was bought and sold with the land.
We know, also, how he came to his freedom, and that, too, was a long time ago. At any rate, after the Black Death and the time of the Wars of the Roses, the farm labourer began to manifest his desire for freedom, but, while this was occurring—I know that hon. Members opposite will know their history quite as well as I do, and will appreciate the point of what I am saying—their brothers who had escaped to the towns, and were living in the walled cities or hamlets, were free men and did not have to buy their freedom by different charters.
None the less, the fact is that we are still accustomed to feeling that men who earn their living by the use of their hands as skilled agricultural workers still may not have the same kind of freedom as have my constituents, who are miners and pottery workers. We think this is wrong, and that there is no justification for it whatever. These men are landless men, and, because they are landless men, they have not had any specific right to these same conditions. If they lose their particular jobs and have to go, whether through sickness or from the fact that


they can no longer continue that particular job, three months is not very much time.
We know that, ultimately, the answer will be to build enough houses for everyone in the country, including the countryside. From a long-term point of view, no one can possibly gainsay that, but we shall have difficulties right up to the time when we reach that position. Until we do, and if we have not recognised the position of the landless man, and we still have the ill-feeling that exists between masters and men, such as is illustrated by this period of four weeks, there will be a further flight of agricultural workers from the land into the towns. That is not good for the greatest industry which we have in the country, and, for that reason alone, I hope that the Minister will give way and agree that three months is not too long.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who gave us his very interesting historical survey, will acquit me of any apparent disrespect for what he said in registering my surprise at his effort to concertina the Black Death and the Wars of the Roses into the same period, in which he seemed to be emulating the mental processes of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
I understand that the view of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, according to what he said in answer to the very effective intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) was that during the six years of the Socialist Government he and his hon. Friends were quite prepared to condemn service occupancies, but were not prepared to do anything to end the system; that what they were going to insist upon at all costs was that, if service occupancies were continued, conditions should not be made better for agricultural occupants.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman is usually most fair. Surely there is a distinct difference between a property owned by a person and let by him to an employee working for him in connection with his industry, and a property requiring the use of public funds. No public funds are required for that. Under the

1949 Act it was laid down that a tenancy should be created. Previous to that it was the person's own property, and we did not interfere with private property rights. Is the hon. Gentleman now inciting us, when we get on the benches opposite in one, two, or three months' time, or in three years' time, to interfere with private property rights in the manner he suggests?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is in inverse ratio to its effectiveness. What he is now saying is that hon. Members opposite, when they were in power, did nothing in the matter because of their tenderness towards private property rights. But there were private property rights in the coal industry and in the railways, and all the other nationalisation Measures. The hon. Gentleman really cannot ride off that point as easily as that.
Either the system was necessary or it was not. If it was, then hon. Members opposite had six years—and a vast majority—in which to do something, and if I remember rightly the opportunity was not wanting. The matter was actually brought up at the annual Whitsuntide Conference of the Labour Party in 1947 or 1948. Whose voice was it then which said that the service occupancy system must go on? Does the hon. Gentleman remember? He ought to because it was the voice of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). And what did the hon. Gentleman say in those days? Did he announce any disagreement on this matter? Not at all; he was a muted Minister.

Mr. Sparks: Did the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and his hon. Friends offer any opposition to this at that time?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am coming to that. We had reached the position where the system was either wrong in the view of hon. Members opposite, in which case they could have altered it, or where is was necessary to continue it as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Gentleman who served under him in those days thought right. Now hon. Members opposite, and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering among them, are saying that although they did not mind continuing the system at that


time they will now reject measures to improve it.

Mr. Mitchison: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I said nothing of the sort. What we are supposed to be discussing at the moment is whether public funds shall be used for the improvement of tied cottages, and, if so, under what conditions. I carefully refrained from going into a general debate on the tied cottage question, but I did suggest to the Minister that the time has come for a proper study and improvement of that matter. It seems to me to he no answer whatever to say that because under different conditions, and immediately after the war, the matter was not righted by the Labour Government, the Tory Party is freed for ever from the duty of doing the right thing.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The fact remains that between 1949 and 1951 hon. Members opposite refused public money and continued the system. That is my point.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester) rose—

Mr. Walker-Smith: I always like to give way to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I merely want to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument because I think there is some force in it. But what I would like to hear from him is whether, in making his criticism, he is saying that the Labour Government were wrong in not doing something about it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: What the hon. and learned Gentleman is inviting me to do is to pass judgment on the issue which arose in 1947 between the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, on the one hand, and no doubt the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) on the other.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What the hon. Gentleman is doing is to excuse himself by accusing the Labour Government.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am speaking in support of the Government Amendment, which proposes to improve the position now existing, and, therefore, should commend itself to all moderate and reasonable opinion from whatever quarter of the House it may come.
The Amendment has been defined as putting into legislative form the code of conduct which is to be found among the best elements operating this system, which hon. Members opposite agreed during six years of office should continue. Had I served on this Standing Committee, I should certainly have warmly supported the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central, and I now heartily commend my right hon. Friend for adopting the suggestion so constructively put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central on that occasion.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering says that four weeks is not a very long time. He asked what was the advantage between four weeks and one week. The answer, of course, is three weeks, or four times as much, if he prefers it in that form. But what hon. Members should also realise is that four weeks is the minimum period written into this Amendment. To it has to be added in most cases in which possession is sought and where there is a reluctance to be dispossessed—and they are the cases with which we are concerned—the length of the court proceedings.
Nearly every case which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North cited in Standing Committee involved court proceedings, as was pointed out at the time in the very effective speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls). That the courts are concerned was conceded with unanimity this afternoon by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell). They both referred to the periods given by the courts in these matters. Therefore, if we are to discuss the matter in a practical way we have to take this minimum period of four weeks and then add to it the time taken to get the matter into the list for hearing in the appropriate county court, which may be anything up to six weeks according to when the court is sitting.
There is then the possibility of an adjournment, and there are the possibilities to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred regarding the county court judges, and then, again, there is the time very often given as the hon. Member for Leeds, West pointed out this afternoon. In practice, therefore,


we have to add to the minimum period those other periods, or an average of them, to strike the probable average period which will elapse between the giving of the notice and the recovery of possession. That gives the matter a completely different look, especially as we have to have regard to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central, that while it is a respite for one agricultural worker it is a waiting period for another.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman is wandering a bit. When all is said and done the person about whom we are talking does not get the protection of the court in this matter. He does not get any notice added to the 28 days.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is on a bad point. The person in question does not, of course, get the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts because there is no tenancy. We all appreciate that. But it is a fact that in the service occupancy the farmer normally goes to the court for possession. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he normally goes.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Mr. Turner-Samuels rose—

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No. I will not give way again.
That, of course, is why all the cases but one that were produced to the Committee involved court proceedings. That is the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central—that though not in law required to go to the courts, in fact farmers go to the courts because it is much better from their own point of view, apart from any other reason, to have a court order for possession rather than to rely upon ejectments by themselves.

Mr. Sparks: How does the hon. Member know? It is mere supposition.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I know because it is public knowledge, and I am not altogether uninformed on these matters. Even if I did not know from those sources, it could be inferred from the speeches made by hon. Members opposite both upstairs in Committee and here today. In the normal cases one has to add to this minimum prescribed period certain periods made up as I have just described.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central said, we have to have regard to the waiting worker as well as to the retiring worker, because it is only the needs of agriculture and of food production which make this system one the continuance of which has been allowed by or has commended itself to all parties. It is that difficult problem, to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering has referred of balancing the needs of the farmer against the accommodation difficulties of the retiring worker.
In my view the long-term answer to that can only be what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has suggested—that if we have sufficient houses then people who have quitted agricultural employment will not want to remain in a service occupancy house or cottage because, no doubt, it is inconveniently situated for the life they intend to follow. Pending that time, this Amendment is a clear improvement upon the situation which we had before. Though it may not be the last word, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central has said, it is certainly a step in the right direction for those of us who want to reconcile, so far as we can, the agricultural needs of food production and the right of people to have accommodation. Those of us who try to reconcile these difficulties objectively will regard this proposal as a step forward in the right direction and will congratulate my right hon. Friend on accepting the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Gooch: I want, first, to make an observation on the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). I think we should get our history right. The hon. Member has referred to words that he considered were used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on the subject of tied cottages. The words my right hon. Friend used on that occasion at an annual conference of the Labour Party were:
The tied cottage is repugnant to farm workers and it is repugnant to me.
I regret exceedingly that the Labour Government did not tackle this question, but I am certain that when we come back, as we shall come back after the next Election, one of the first things the next Labour Government will do will be


to alter the law radically and give protection to the farm worker.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would the hon. Member say then why it was that in their manifesto for the last two General Elections, the party opposite did not undertake to do that?

Mr. Gooch: In our last manifesto we said, first, that we would abolish the cottage certificate system. We definitely undertook to take away from the agricultural executive committees the power to grant certificates for tied cottages when we came back to office. Unfortunately, we did not come back but we shall next time and when we do we shall not only abolish the cottage certificate system but the tied cottage as well.
I am in a difficulty because none of the proposals before the House today on the question of tied cottages goes far enough for me. As hon. Members are aware, I sought to have Clause 2 (1) expunged from the Bill in the Committee stage because it nullifies the decision of the Labour Government to the effect that grants for reconditioning, or loans for building new farm houses should be made available only where a tenancy was created.
I appreciate that I should incur the displeasure of the Chair if I advanced arguments in favour of eliminating Clause 2, but I want to make plain that I am still opposed to the whole procedure. Tied cottages are socially and morally wrong. They tie a man hand and foot. Many farms are run efficiently today without the use of tied cottages, and the Government will be doing great disservice to thousands of farm workers in passing this Bill if it leads to the creation of many more tied cottages from which families can be evicted at the whim of employers.
It has been made very plain that our condemnation of the system does not extend to condemning all farmers for harsh treatment. I do not condemn all farmers. The majority play the game by their men and they have never sought to evict families, but some farmers would seek to do so and I am concerned about them. The great point I am making, quite apart from any other argument, is to ask why there should be always fear of eviction hanging over the heads of so many farm workers.
Many of these cottages which it is proposed to recondition at the public expense are really not worth spending money on at all. They are rural slums and the farm worker is entitled to something more than a patched-up hovel. If I may digress, I am not opposed to the principle of an assured market and guaranteed prices for farmers—the owners of these cottages—or to security of tenure for the efficient farmer. Indeed, I voted for all three; but to pour out public money to enable farmers to strengthen the stranglehold they have on their own workmen is not only bad economics but unjust and inhuman to the farm worker and his family.
We are discussing these two suggestions of a period of four weeks' notice or a period of three months. The suggestion of a four weeks' period comes from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The gymnastic performances of hon. Members opposite are really wonderful. When this Bill was before the House on 22nd April and I essayed to quote a few cases of evictions, hon. and right hon. Members opposite said that my case against the Bill was not impressive. In fact, they had some doubt as to whether what I described really took place. Reference has been made to the fact that in the Committee stage I supplied hon. Members opposite with a selection of cases out of some hundreds handled by the National Union of Agricultural Workers every year.
I want to tell the hon. Member for Hertford that some of the cases were of summary evictions and others were taken to court. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government said this about the cases which were taken to court:
… The time between the giving of the notice and the family leaving their house was greater than the normal time which is given in any form of restricted tenancy. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th May, 1952; c. 113.]
The time was longer than it would normally have been for the simple reason that the cases that I quoted, and upon which the Minister commented, were cases that had been handled in the courts by lawyers instructed by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. Otherwise, there would not have been that very long period.
The Parliamentary Secretary was looking at the list just now, and he will have seen that all those cases were defended in the courts by lawyers, and the tenants were able to occupy those cottages longer than would normally have been the case because the National Union of Agricultural Workers spent money on instructing lawyers to do the best they could for the occupants of those cottages.
The party opposite want to perpetuate the tied cottage system, but I made a remarkable discovery during the debates on the Housing Bill, and that is that even Tory Members of Parliament have consciences, and even some National Liberals have consciences. Their consciences must have smote them on this occasion and made them wonder whether they should allow the law to continue or whether they should give four weeks' grace to an occupant of a tied cottage before he is turned out. The working of the consciences of hon. Members opposite has resulted in this Amendment being put on the Order Paper. I welcome the change of heart on the part of hon. Members, but I do not welcome the Amendment; I am opposed to it.
It is really magnanimous of them that they should come forward today with an Amendment which says that a farm-worker and his wife and family should be allowed to remain in a cottage for at least four weeks. Although hon. Members opposite have said that I have not made out a case against this business of eviction, there was evidently something in my case or hon. Members opposite would not have taken the trouble to put this Amendment on the Order Paper. If I vote for the period of three months' grace it must not be assumed that I think that justice is being done. Tied cottages, in my opinion, should be brought within the Rent Restriction Acts. The farm worker should be offered alternative accommodation before he can be taken out of his cottage. What we are trying to do is to play fair by all engaged in industry.
The champions of the farmers are asking for the same concessions that I am asking for farm workers, to be extended to farmers when they are placed in a similar position. This is what Mr. A. G. Street says in the "Farmers' Weekly":
If, for national reasons, any farmer, old or young, should be compelled to give up his

farm and his house, then alternative accommodation should be provided for him before this is done.
I agree with the suggestion made by Mr. Street, but, of course, I want the concessions not only for the farmer but also for the farm worker.
It is mistakenly assumed in some quarters that if a tied cottage tenant is granted four weeks' grace or even three months' grace it marks the end of the tied cottage controversy. Reference has been made to the fact that the tied cottage problem will be solved by the building of thousands of new cottages. But it will not. It will help because there will be alternative accommodation, but what we say is that no man and no family living in any type of cottage should he subject to summary eviction. Unless the law is altered in that respect we shall not be giving these people what they have been asking for for a long time.
If the House agrees to giving three months' grace it will not mark the end of the tied cottage controversy and, so far as I am concerned, the controversy will not end until the system is entirely abolished. There is no occupation or industry in which the tied cottage system presses with such severity as in farming, and there has been persistent agitation on the part of the majority of farm workers for many years for its abolition. The system is disturbing not only to a young couple but often to the old agricultural worker who hesitates to leave his job because he knows very well that when he ceases to work for his employer he is subject to eviction and has got nowhere to go, so he keeps on working when he ought to retire. There are plenty of cases of that description which I have come across.

Brigadier Medlicott: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that in the overwhelming majority of cases where a farm worker has to be found other accommodation, the local authorities use their utmost endeavours with great success to see that these men are given priority for housing accommodation?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: I do not deny that there are cases of that description; there is no opposition from the rural district councils to regarding these men as priority cases. They do so regard them now and again,


in bad cases. The trouble is that even the rural district councils have not sufficient alternative accommodation to provide for all the cases that occur from time to time. I pay my tribute to the employers of the old workers who do not leave their work because they do not want to leave their homes, for allowing them to remain in their properties undisturbed—cottages which have been their homes for many years; but the fact is that they remain in those cottages on sufferance, and the fear that they may be taken to court remains with them, which does not make for a happy and peaceful retirement.
If the farm worker were given four weeks' notice to quit his cottage it would merely prevent a few summary evictions. It would not give the majority of farm workers living in tied cottages any more security. Such a concession, in my opinion, makes no contribution to the solution of this vexed problem. Public money should not be used to bolster up a system which hon. Members opposite know to be wrong, and their support for the Government Amendment is an admission that they know it is wrong and that what I have been saying is right.

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), with his long experience of local government, should think that the grant which we are discussing at this moment could be used to perpetuate what he called rural slums. He ought to know that the grant is made by the local authorities, the rural district councils, that it is subject to their discretion, that the property in question is open to their inspection and that in no conceivable circumstances would any application for a grant be approved if the property itself was not worth reconditioning.
I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in his opening remarks, expressed his views in a moderate way with which nearly all of us would agree, but I thought that he was arguing on a slightly false premise. I think he was arguing against the whole principle of eviction. None of us likes eviction. It is extremely unpleasant to everybody concerned, and if it were possible to conceive of a state of society in which under no circumstances was eviction from a house necessary, we should all be delighted.
But that, unfortunately, is not the case. If a policeman, a school master or a stationmaster is found to be unsatisfactory and loses his job, or even if he is moved from one place to another, he has to get out of his house by a particular date and if, in very rare cases, he refuses to move in the physical sense, the authorities—be they the railway authorities, the Coal Board, the education authorities or anybody else—apply to the court for an order and eviction takes place. There are evictions in all types of tenancies.
Just as the schoolmaster or the stationmaster has to live near his work so, also, for the needs of food production, does the agricultural labourer. If hon. Members opposite do not think that it is necessary, let them experiment by advertising for a cowman and add, "A cottage is available, five miles away." Let them see how many replies they get.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has made great play with the fact that there have been widespread cases of eviction from tied cottages, in the restricted and technical sense of the phrase. I have been through the speech which he made in the Committee upstairs and I have also looked through his brief, which he was kind enough to leave about afterwards. I am surprised that he put forward the case at all, because to try to prove this widespread eviction of agricultural labourers by wicked, unkind and cruel farmers, he had to go right back to 1946. Of the 16 or 17 cases he quoted all but four were obtained by court orders, and he was careful to omit, in each of those four cases, any mention of how long the farm worker or his family had continued to occupy the cottage after they had first been given notice to quit.
The hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee upstairs further details of a case which he mentioned in the Second Reading the Bill, that concerning an eviction which had occurred near my home, where a family spent the night in a church in a heavy rainstorm, under frightful circumstances. I have been into that case. It occurred in 1948, about 10 miles from my home; but the hon. Gentleman did not quite tell the whole story. The family in question were first given notice in July. A court order was


obtained on 30th August, with effect from 11th October, and certainly there was an eviction. Following the eviction the family were housed straight away in an institute and they were found a council house in February, 1949. I do not condone the way in which that eviction was carried out, but I must observe that three months elapsed between the time when the farm worker first received his notice to quit and the time when he was physically put out of his house. In many cases three months is a longer period than would have been obtained by a court order in regard to many of the restricted tenancies of houses belonging to authorities controlled by the Government.

Mr. Gooch: I gather that the hon. Gentleman heard the whole of the speeches which were delivered on that day. He will know that in reference to the case he has quoted the Minister made the remark that it was a faked case. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that I faked the case?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I certainly never said that it was a faked case. I am pointing out that when the hon. Gentleman produced the details of the case he told only half the story. I do not condone the way in which the man was evicted.

Mr. Gooch: It was not a faked case, after all.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: That fact is that one cannot discount the human element in these matters. In every single industry, in agriculture or any other, one occasionally finds an employer or an employee, or both, who are explosive types, and that is where the trouble begins.
I support the Amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend because it gives legislative effect to what, in 99 cases out of 100, has always been the practice.

Mr. George Brown: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument with as much sympathy as I can command. The case he has just quoted was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch). The hon. Gentleman tells us that he agrees that the eviction was carried out in a bad way; nevertheless.

the occupier of the cottage did, in fact, get three months' notice before he was evicted, as a result of the employer choosing to go to court. He now says that he supports the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman to his own Bill, the effect of which is to lay down a period of four weeks. Will he tell us how that is an improvement in a case such as that which he has already told us he did not like?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman has really misunderstood my argument to that extent. What I was saying when I was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend gives legislative effect to what is the practice in 99 cases out of 100, and for that reason I think it should be inserted in the Bill.
I now come to the alternative Amendment, dealing with the period of three months. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—because he was formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture—three months is quite impractical. The right hon. Gentleman can easily conceive circumstances in which, owing to the farmer and the farm worker being explosive types who do not get on with each other, or where the farm worker is no good, the latter would leave his employer at the most inconvenient time, for instance, in the middle of the harvest, or when the farmer was experiencing great difficulty with a dairy herd. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the possible effect on food or milk production.
The suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is completely unpractical. I do not propose to say anything more about that particular Amendment to my right hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not quite understand why, except on grounds of sheer prejudice, hon. Members opposite should object to public money being spent on the reconditioning of tied cottages, because by their opposition to the grant they are, in fact, seeking to deprive the farm workers whose interests they claim to represent of improved amenities in the cottages which they occupy. The whole benefit and advantage of the rant goes to the farm worker who, after the grant has been given, occupies a cottage with better amenities than before.
Those who say that public money ought not to be spent on any cottage where an eviction can take place without alternative accommodation being provided had better look at the law again, because evictions can take place in many restricted tenancies, both in relation to coal mines and railways, without either the Coal Board or the Railway Executive having to provide alternative accommodation. That argument just does not hold good.
I beg the hon. Member for Norfolk, North to remember that he is doing a disservice to the agricultural industry by whipping up what I believe to be largely synthetic feeling on the question of the tied cottage. If there is so much feeling on this question perhaps he can explain why it is so difficult to persuade any occupant of a tied cottage to move into a council house, even where the employer offers to pay the difference between the old rent and the new.
The truth is that farmers and farm workers are as fine a body of men as can be found in the length and breadth of this island. And in spite of the attempts of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North to sow ill-feeling the relations between the employer and the employee in the agricultural industry might well be taken as an example for many other industries.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I had not intended to speak in the debate at all until I heard the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe). I interrupted him on what I thought was a point which he was making and, instead of answering me, he chose to make an attack upon me which could not have been more out of place. My position on the question of tied cottages and of having houses in agriculture on restricted tenancies or even service tenancies is fairly well known and quite clear, and it is very much that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
To attack me, therefore, as he did, instead of answering the point I made, is a very good example, if I may say so to him, of the problems which face those of us who want to get this very thorny, human problem settled in a reasonable way. There is such a lack of willingness on the part of those whose interests come mostly from farming or owning land to

see the problem which exists. They believe that everybody who makes a criticism or suggests that there should be some way out of the problem is trying to stir up trouble and to create synthetic indignation. That is not so; it is far from the truth. I think that the hon. Member for Windsor would have done much better to have addressed himself to what the Amendment seeks to do and what it will achieve.
I believe the Amendment to be a bad one because it will spoil the position which already exists. I have said in the House before that deliberately to seek to revive all the feelings in this controversy by providing public money for service cottages is a very great disservice at this moment, for it is bound to arouse feelings and to cause extravagant statements. For that reason it is a great pity that the Government should embark upon this step.
The position which previously existed was that a cottage could be on a restricted tenancy and could have the advantages of Schedule G under the Rent Restriction Acts, which was a considerable advantage to those who wanted to get possession of the cottage. So long as that was so, the cottage qualified for public money for this purpose. On the other hand, if a farmer or owner deliberately chose for his own convenience, or whatever the reason, not to have a restricted tenancy, and thereby avoided putting himself to the trouble and the public duty of satisfying a tribunal of three people—one farmer, one worker and one independent—that possession of the cottage without alternative accommodation was a great deal more than a matter of convenience but was, in fact, a matter of necessity; if he chose not to subject himself to that requirement, and not to put himself in the position of having to get a court order, then he ought not to have public money for this purpose. That was the position.
I have sat for a long time as a member of one of these tribunals deciding whether applications were on grounds of necessity or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) would go rather further than I would, but I would certainly say that, in my experience, no farmer who could put a case to show that he had real need of possession of the cottage, for food production


purposes, ever tailed in his application. I believe there are many service cottages still retained for service occupation which could become restricted tenancies without any hardship or trouble to the farmer or any loss of food production.
By weakening the position, as the Minister is doing, and even more by his new Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman is discouraging farmers from doing what they ought to do—make many of these houses into restricted tenancies instead of tenancies on service occupation. I believe we ought to oppose the Amendment because it will have this effect.
With the exception of a very limited number of cases—and the hon. Member for Windsor made this point fairly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North would not dissent from it—where the farmer is of such an explosive type that he puts the tenant out straight away, in the main, even with service cottages, the farmer has, for his own protection, chosen to go to court and get an order, as the hon. Member for Windsor says happened in the case which he quoted. The time taken to get an order and the general attitude of the county court judge has been such that in the majority of cases where evictions have occurred, even in unpleasant circumstances, a longer period than four weeks has elapsed.
This Amendment is bad from the point of view of the Conservative Party and of farmers themselves, as well as from our point of view, because it will establish by law that the period shall be four weeks. The right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary both jumped in to comment, when I interrupted the hon. Member for Windsor, that it was only a minimum, but with my more limited experience than that of the right hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly certain that four weeks will, in fact, become the test, and if the tenant has had four weeks, that will be the end of the matter. Thus, what has been taking rather a longer period will soon happen after four weeks.
I am surprised at the hon. Member for Windsor, with his great understanding of this problem and his very sympathetic approach to it—and I know there is not much difference here between my position and his; I am surprised that he did not see the position even when I drew

attention to it and that he chose to think I was creating synthetic indignation. I am surprised he did not see that whatever the Minister sought to do, in fact this Amendment will worsen the existing position in the majority even of service occupied cottages. Most hon. Members opposite know that this is so.

Brigadier Medlicott: In the past, the great majority of farmers have always behaved even more generously than the law enjoined. Is there any reason to assume that they will not go on doing so?

Mr. Brown: Yes, with great respect there is. Because the law was obviously harsh, a great many friends of the industry, aware of its problems, have been at great pains to persuade everybody to be as generous and sensible about this as possible. In some cases they have succeeded, in some they have failed. Now the attitude will be that which was shown in one of the farming journals a week or two ago in which it was said, in the editor's comments, "Now this thing is going to be settled." As a matter of fact, they wrongly attributed to me any part in choosing the period of four weeks, but they said this matter was going to be settled because it was now to be laid down that the period should be four weeks. That will be the attitude of all.
I hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will think again. Whatever they intended to do, they are doing something altogether different. The Amendment will be no help; it will not prevent a single harsh case arising, but it will assist them to arise quicker than otherwise would have been the case. The Minister may ask, "What would you do about it?" In his own speech he said that what he was seeking to do was to ensure that what is already happening with restricted tenancies shall happen in these cases, too—in what he chose to describe as the "real tied cottage." If the Minister wants to do that, then the right approach is to draft something which will cause the owner of the service occupied cottage to go through the same hoops as in the case of the restricted tenancy cottage.
All he has to do is to say, "If you want public money, you must be prepared to apply to the tribunal of three people, one on each side and with an independent chairman; and you must satisfy them that there is a need, and you must get


a court order." Then these owners will be in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman is deluding himself will exist under the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is not deluding us or hon. Members opposite, because we have been concerned in this matter for a long time and know all about it.
I apologise again for intervening in the debate, and I urge upon hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise that what they are doing here is not what the Minister sought to do and to realise, after the speech of the hon. Member for one of the Norfolk constituencies—

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe).

Mr. Brown: He represents Windsor and lives in Norfolk. They should realise that in fact they are worsening the position for even the very harsh cases which exist, instead of improving it.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I intervene for a moment or two at the risk of incurring the displeasure of the Minister in order to support his Amendment, because I am in a quandary about the attitude of the Opposition. If we do something to help in a case like this, we are told that we are going to harm the position; if we do nothing, we are told that by doing nothing we are also holding out no hope to the agricultural workers. I think that it is quite clear that whatever Amendment is put forward, and whatever has been suggested in this matter, it would not be acceptable to hon. Members opposite and certainly not to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch).
I intervened because I want to say a word about what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North has said. It is almost a standing joke that he is the tied cottage Member, and that he is sent to this House on the tied cottage vote, but it is a pity, I think, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) cannot use his influence to encourage the hon. Member for Norfolk, North to tell the agricultural workers what is the true feeling of the party opposite on this matter.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North in his speech this afternoon used the word "we" and said, in effect, "We may not have done anything during the last six

years, but next time we are going to do the whole job and go the whole hog." He said "we"; so what? Can he say that he is speaking for the party opposite? That is certainly what he will tell the agricultural workers in Norfolk and the agricultural workers wherever he goes in the country to speak, and what I am asking him is this: Is this a taste of things to come? Is this the beginning of his next Election pledges, and if so—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that this Amendment covers or renders relevant a debate on the whole issue of what has been called the tied cottage or service tenancy.

Mr. Fell: I bow most humbly to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was merely trying to point out—and I must not go any further—the attitude which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North has adopted to this whole question of the tied cottage, which is relevant to this Amendment, in that he has in effect told the farm workers that next time he is going to go the whole hog. The only reason that I intervene is that I feel that if he cannot tell the House the true feeling of the party opposite on an important matter like this, he should, when he goes to the country, at least tell the farm workers.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The whole point about this debate and the Amendment we are dealing with is whether the Minister's Amendment really serves any useful purpose. That is the matter which the House has to face, and it is the responsibility of the Minister to look at and to answer that question. The whole case has been given away, so far as the Government are concerned, by two of its hon. Friends who took part in this discussion.
In the first place, I refer to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). He is, of course, a very shrewd debater—words come very easily to him and ideas spring up in his mind in a most fertile way as he goes along—but he is always shrewd enough not to face the point that matters if it is against him. The point that matters here is whether—I see that the Minister is laughing but we will see if he is still laughing in a moment—the Minister, in introducing this Amendment, had any genuine purpose


whatsoever. In my submission he did not have, and he knows that there is no genuine objective or purpose in the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Hertford said that usually these cases go to court and in the process weeks and often months elapse. I do not agree with him, as I will explain in a moment, but if that is right, then the miserable useless period of four weeks which is embalmed in this Amendment is absolutely without any point whatever.

Mr. Gibson: How can one embalm an Amendment?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The second point on which the case was given away was that made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe).

Mr. Walker-Smith: The four weeks has to be added to the other period and proceedings cannot be started until the end of the four weeks.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That may be clear to the hon. Member, but it is not clear to anyone else. With regard to what the hon. Member for Windsor said, he did not go quite as far as the hon. Member for Hertford, but he went far enough, because he said, "Why should we on this side of the House be opposing this Amendment because, in any case, in all these matters, farmers were invariably good enough not to eject their tenant until at least a period of four weeks had passed." If that is correct, one wonders then what is the purpose of this Amendment. There is no doubt about it in my mind. I do not know where the inspiration came from to the Minister to introduce this miserable Amendment, but I think that my view will be shared by most hon. Members on this side of the House, namely that this Amendment was merely and designedly put up as a blind to pretend that something was being done.
What makes the matter worse is the repetition from the Government benches of the charge that we on this side, when we were the Government, did nothing about the tied cottage occupant. I put a point to the hon. Member for Hertford during the course of his speech but, unfortunately, he was quick enough to see what I was after, and did not answer it. I put to him the point that if he complained that the Labour Government did

not do anything about this matter, did he think that the Labour Government in not so doing was wrong. Of course, he very quickly saw that if he said "Yes, the Labour Government was wrong" it would then follow that the Conservative Government must also be wrong in not doing anything about it. It really is a very bad thing for anyone to stand up and blame someone else for something which he will not himself remedy. The point is whether, in the light of this Amendment, what is being done by it can be justified or whether something more should be done.
It is suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the period should be three months instead of four weeks. Whether the period is three months or four weeks, it would have no legal effect by virtue of any provision in this Amendment. All the Minister's Amendment does is to say that any contribution the farmer might be entitled to in respect of his house shall not be paid to him if he does not observe the conditions specified in subsection (4) of the Amendment. It does not lay down that in law the farmer-landlord is bound to give four weeks' notice to an outgoing tenant. It merely uses the word "permit." Who is to say that some farmer who is living on his losses, as most farmers do, feeling nevertheless that he is well enough off, will not say to the Treasury, "I don't care two straws about your contribution. I want this house and I am going to get it"? Although that may be an argument reductio ad absurdum, it has to be met, because under this Amendment the farmer could do that. In other words, the Minister's Amendment is not worth the paper it is written on.
I beg the Minister not to play with the House of Commons in this way. He has submitted this Amendment, which has already occupied the House quite a long time today. He cannot intend that we should do that and then go through the Division Lobby in order to decide whether this useless, meaningless and completely otiose Amendment ought to become law. Even if it gets onto the Statute Book it will amount to nothing; it adds nothing to the law. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, it will create confusion in what is already a difficult position. Instead of their being


an application by the occupant to the court, or instead of being allowed a reasonable time as is usually the case now, four weeks will become regarded as the limit after which the tenant will have to get out or be put out.
The Minister ought to reconsider this matter. The hon. Member for Hertford is well-informed in these matters and much practised in them too, but it really is not correct for him to say that these tenants invariably go to the courts. They do not. What is more, it is a useless journey if they do go to the courts. He knows very well that it has been decided several times, and re-affirmed recently not only in the court of first instance, but also in a higher court, that a tenant in these circumstances under a contract of service has no right to any notice, not even an hour's notice, and he can be subjected to eviction without more. He can as of right bring no proceedings against his landlord or against the owner of the property for compensation or other redress.
This is a pathetic Amendment which pretends to protect people who badly need protection. Indeed, there could be no point in the Minister coming here with any Amendment unless he thought some protection was necessary. What I ask him is the point of this Amendment if it does nothing? I assume the reason the Minister put it on the Order Paper was because he felt that there was a case for doing something. What was it that he felt ought to be done? How does he suggest this Amendment will succeed in doing anything towards solving this problem? Does he not surely realise on reflection that be will do more harm than good by this most wretched Amendment?

Mr. Lindgren: After the Minister's clear opening statement, drawing a distinction between the restricted tenancy and what is more commonly known as the tied cottage, it is surprising that we should have had this debate extending over such a long time. I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) and the hon. Members for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) that we are not now discussing whether or not the tied cottage is required. We admit that in certain circumstances a tied cottage is an essential part of the job. What

matters is the ability of the man who loses his job to find alternative accommodation to a tied cottage. What we are discussing is, not whether tied cottages are right or wrong, but whether certain properties should have the benefit of public funds.
Hon. Members opposite have quoted the Coal Board, the railways, the police and school-teachers as occupying tied cottages. They are not tied cottages in this sense: they are restricted tenancies.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I quite agree. I endeavoured to explain that they were restricted tenancies of the sort where the landlord—in most cases a public authority —does not have to provide alternative accommodation before getting an eviction.

Mr. Lindgren: But with those restricted tenancies, whether the landlord be the Coal Board, the railways or anybody else, he has to go to the court to get a court order. With the properties we are considering there is no requirement to go to the court. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) pointed out, under this Clause we should have the procedure of the restricted tenancy or the alternative procedure, and our main objection is that the Clause and the Minister's Amendment make the position worse for the agricultural worker than we provided in the 1949 Act, in which we said that these cottages should be improved. If they are improved, public money is used and a tenancy should be created.
On Second Reading I used a phrase which might be misunderstood, when I said that the tied cottage was used more viciously in the agriculture industry than in any other. That is true in a sense, but I did not mean that the farmer was more vicious. Before coming to this House I was a railway man, and on the railways one serves a lifetime, maybe at a number of different stations. In agriculture a man changes his job a number of times, going from one employer to another, for varying reasons. In the police and in the school-teaching profession there is, in the main, continuity of employment from entering the service until leaving. While there may be continuity of employment in the agriculture industry, a man may still have a number of different employers.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made


the point that under the Minister's Amendment there shall be a month's notice, and that is a month more than at present because at the moment there is no notice at all. In a rural area a month is no use in which to obtain alternative accommodation. Even in three months it is difficult. The hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central said that rural district councils do their best, but given the best will in the world the average rural district council cannot provide alternative accommodation for the agricultural worker who has to get out of a tied cottage within three months. It would be wrong if they did.
There are very many rural district councils who have persons on their lists for three, four and five years. Hon. Members opposite twitted some of my hon. Friends on this side that we did nothing during the period of the Labour Government, but on the fundamental job of providing additional houses in rural areas more new dwellings for agricultural workers were provided between 1945 and 1951 than in the whole of the period between the two wars.
6.30 p.m.
Under hon. Gentlemen opposite the countryside was declining while they were in power and cottages were no longer used for agricultural workers. In Hertfordshire, which I know, and in Northamptonshire, part of which I represent, cottage after cottage was not required by the farmers because they did not want workers on the land. They became weekend cottages for the gentlemen from London in the case of Hertfordshire and from Kettering and Northampton in the case of Northamptonshire. Housing was not required in the rural areas for agricultural workers in the inter-war years because of the decline of agriculture and the lack of employment in the industry.
I do not want to protract the discussion because, in fact, the real point is whether or not we should use public money for these improvements. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, which is for three months rather than one month, or, alternatively, that he will accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper and withdraw it and look at the whole matter again in the light of the suggestions made, inserting something in another

place. I feel that one month is too short and three months is reasonable, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept either the Amendment to the proposed Amendment or the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has stated his case with moderation and has got to the point at issue, which is whether these cottages should be improved or not. It must never be forgotten that my right hon. Friend is a housing Minister. He is not here to amend the law about service tenancies in any way. This Bill solely deals with the question of public money being spent on the improvement of cottages in the rural areas. The law as it stands, and as it was left by the party opposite, is that a service tenancy is legal. The hon. Member for Wellingborough said it was necessary to have it in certain industries, but they did not abolish it when they were in office, nor did they amend it to secure an improved code of conduct.
What does my right hon. Friend propose to do? He proposes to do two things, both of which improve the existing state of affairs. The first is to make facilities available to improve the cottages, and the second is to extend the time of the notice which an occupant of these cottages is given under a service tenancy. Those are two improvements. They must be improvements on the situation as we found it. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough admitted, these service cottages are necessary and, that being the case, surely he will agree that it is a good thing to put them in a proper state of repair. It follows automatically that it is no use saying that a service tenancy of a cottage in a rural area is legal, and that it then should be in a bad condition. That is not the way to attract labour to the land.

Mr. Gooch: We do not say that.

Mr. Marples: We say that we must encourage the reconditioning of these cottages and these grants must be made available in the case of service tenancies. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who kept his Amendment to the narrow point and did not range over the field of the tied cottage, put his points very moderately. I think the House will agree


with me, especially those who were members of the Committee upstairs, that we have had extended debates upon the tied cottage system both in Committee and down here on what were quite narrow points. At the present moment the law is that a man can be evicted at once, but in the majority of cases the farmer goes to court.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) was kind enough to send me a list of cases of service tenancies where the owner went to court and where there were summary evictions. Twelve of the cases he quoted were court order cases, and only four of them were summary evictions. It was quite clear from the paper which he inadvertently left upstairs in Committee, but which was rather convenient for my right hon. Friend and myself, that most of the cases were court order cases. I think we can, broadly speaking over the field of service tenancies as a whole, say that actually the farmer takes his tenant to court.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North said that he was concerned with the bad farmer. There were only a few of them, but it was the bad farmer who was worrying him. But if a farmer is a bad farmer it surely follows that he will not improve his cottage, because if a bad farmer is responsible for his cottage he can evict at a moment's notice. If he takes advantage of the characteristic generosity of my right hon. Friend, which is given for proper and laudable purposes, he will have to give a month's notice as a minimum and in most cases will go to court.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more in reply to the arguments put forward because the subject has been ventilated on both sides of the Committee. I should, however, like to say this. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) sought to prove by ingenious argument that one month's notice was too much and it should be nothing at all, but his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering said that one month's notice was too little and it should be more He argued that one month would virtually become the minimum, but the cases given by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North prove that that is not really so, and that most of the farmers will take them to court anyway.

Mr. G. Brown: Since the hon. Gentleman has chosen to refer to me and has

misrepresented what I have said, we must get it quite clear. What I said was the objection to putting one month in this Amendment was that it was going to mean that one month would become the maximum. Therefore, it will be far too little and will be no improvement on the existing situation.

Mr. Marples: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's view we shall see whether he will vote against the one month when it is put to the House, but if the right hon. Gentleman really means what he says he will vote for the law remaining as it is.

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Member says, from the cases I quoted to him, that the tenants actually remain in the cottages for considerable periods. To be fair to the House it should be borne in mind what I said earlier, that the reason why they remain for several months in these cottages is that my union spend a lot of money instructing lawyers to keep them in the cottages.

Mr. Marples: The reason why they remain there is because the farmers take them to court and do not apply summary eviction. Admittedly the legal representatives employed by the hon. Gentleman's union assist the process, but if the farmer were not a decent farmer and did not take the tenants to court but evicted them summarily, they would not be there so long. That is a point which must be borne in mind.
My right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment and provide for a period of three months. He asks the House to accept the period of one month because it is an improvement on existing conditions. I ask the House to bear this question in mind. The question at issue is, "Shall we improve?" and not "Shall we alter?" the existing law.

Mr. Edward Heath (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Edward Heath (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That 'four weeks' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 203.

Division No. 192.]
AYES
[3.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Alport, C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, C E


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gower, H. R.
Nicholls, Harmar


Arbuthnot, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M
Grimond, J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D


Banks, Col. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Harden, J. R. E.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baxter, A. B.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)
Osborne, C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Heath, Edward
Pete, Brig. C. H. M


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Birch, Nigel
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Bishop, F. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch


Black, C. W.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Holt, A. F.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hope, Lord John
Redmayne, M.


Braine, B. R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Renton, D. L. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hurd, A. R.
Robson-Brown, W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Bullard, D. G.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, R. S.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Jennings, R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Burden, F. F. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Cary, Sir Robert
Kaberry, D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Keeling, Sir Edward
Scott, R. Donald


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, William


Clyde, Rt Hon. J. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Cole, Norman
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Colegate, W. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Cooper, Son Ldr. Albert
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Snaddon, W. McN.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Soames, Capt. C.


Cranborne, Viscount
Linstead, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Speir, R. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Stevens, G. P.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Low, A. R. W.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McAdden, S. J.
Storey, S.


Deedes, W. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McKibbin, A. J.
Studholme, H. G.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, C. S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Maclay, Hon. John
Sutcliffe, H.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Teeling, W.


Drewe, G.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Duthie, W. S.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliot, Rt Hon. W. E
Macpherson, Maj Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Fell, A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Finlay, Graeme
Manninghnam Buller, Sir R. E
Tilney, John


Fisher, Nigel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F.
Marples, A. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Turton. R. H.


Foster, John
Maude, Angus
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mellor, Sir John
Wade, D. W.


Gammans, L. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)




Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wellwood, W.
Wills, G.


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wood, Hon. R.


Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)



Watkinson, H. A.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Parker, J.


Adams, Richard
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Paton, J.


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Grey, C. F.
Popplewell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Porter, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bartley, P.
Hamilton, W. W.
Rankin, John


Beattie, J.
Hargreaves, A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bence, C. R.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hayman, F. H.
Rhodes, H.


Benson, G.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Richards, R.


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Herbison, Miss M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Ross, William


Boardman, W.
Hoy, J. H.
Royle, C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G
Hubbard, T. F.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Bowles, F. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Short, E. W


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Slater, J.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Snow, J. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Sorenson, R. W


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sparks, J. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Keenan, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Collick, P. H
Kinley, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Cove, W. G
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Crosland, C. A. R
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Daines, P.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Logan, D. G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
MacColl, J. E.
Timmons, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Tomney, F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McInnes, J
Usborne, H C.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Viant, S. P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Deer, G.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
West, D. G.


Donnelly, D. L,
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Edelman, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wigg, George


Edwards, Rt. Hon Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. LIywelyn (Abertillery)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Monslow, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Ewart, R.
Morley, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Fernyhough, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Fienburgh, W
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Follick, M.
Moyle, A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Foot, M M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woodburn, Rt, Hon. A


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oldfield, W. H.
Yales, V. F.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Oliver, G. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oswald, T.



Gibson, C. W.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glanville, James
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Hannan and Mr Wallace.


Gooch, E. G.
Pargiter, G. A.



Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 193.]
AYES
[6.42 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S)
Gough, C. F. H.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston super-Mare)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gower, H. R.
Partridge, E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Graham, Sir Fergus
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Arbuthnot, John
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Perkins, W. R. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Grimond, J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Pickthorn, K. W M.


Baker, P. A. D.
Harden, J. R. E.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Pitman, I. J


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Banks, Col. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Profumo, J. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heath, Edward
Rayner, Brig. R.


Belt, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Redmayne, M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Renton, D. L. M.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Hinchkigbrooke, Viscount
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Robertson, Sir David


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Birch, Nigel
Holt, A. F.
Robson-Brown, W.


Bishop, F. P.
Hope, Lord John
Roper, Sir Harold


Black, C W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Bowen, E. R.
Hurd, A. R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Scott, R. Donald


Braine, B. R.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shepherd, William


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Jennings, R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bullard, D. G.
Kaberry, D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Burden, F. F. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Snadden, W. McN.


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Soames, Capt. C


Cary, Sir Robert
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Speir, R. M


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Linstead, H. N.
Stevens, G. P.


Cole, Norman
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Colegate, W. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Storey, S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Low, A. R. W.
Studholme, H. G


Cranborne, Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sulcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McAdden, S. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Teeling, W.


Crouch, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
McKibbin, A. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft,'Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Maclay, Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tilney, John


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Deedes, W. F.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Turner, H. F. L.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Drewe, G
Markham, Major S. F.
Wade, D. W.


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn.'Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Dunoan, Capt. J. A. L.
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fell, A.
Maude, Angus
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Watkinson, H. A.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Mellor, Sir John
Wellwood, W.


Foster, John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gage, C. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollek)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wills, G.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, L. D.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wood, Hon R.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.



Glyn, Sir Ralph
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, J. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Major Conant and Mr. Oaksbott.







NOES


Adams, Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Pannell, Charles


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Grey, C. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paton, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pearson, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Balfour, A
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Porter, G.


Bartley, P.
Hannan, W.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Beattie, J.
Hargreaves, A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)


Bence, C. R.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bonn, Wedgwood
Hastings, S.
Rankin, John


Benson, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Beswick, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Rhodes, H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Royle, C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Bowles, F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Shurmer, P. L. E


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Slater, J.


Burke, W. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Sorensen, R. W.


Champion, A. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Chapman. W. D.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd G. R
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, T.


Ciunie, J.
Keenan, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Cocks, F. S.
Kenyon, C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Coldrick, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Collick, P. H.
King, Dr. H. M
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Dairies, P.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Timmons, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Logan, D. G.
Tomney, F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, J. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


do Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, F.
Weitzman, D.


Donnelly, D. L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Edelman, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Ewart, R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fernyhough, E.
Morley, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Fienburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Foot, M. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Freeman, John (Watford)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. F.


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.



Gooch, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, T.
Mr. Wigg and Mr. Wilkins.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Padley, W. E.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 3.—(DISPOSAL OF HOUSES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Gibson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that without prejudice to the existing powers of the Minister under the said

paragraph (d) no general consent shall be given under this subsection otherwise than by an order stating any conditions of the consent and no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will excuse me for a moment, there is another Amendment in the name of the hon.


Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to line 23, which seeks to insert certain provisos. Is it possible to take these two together? I am in the hands of the hon. Members.

Mr. MacColl: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the point is rather a different one.

Mr. Gibson: We are now on the Clause which deals with the sale of houses. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that when a Minister gives his consent to schemes for the sale of houses he shall not do so until the draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House.
This Amendment raises a matter of first-class importance. Not only does it deal with the question of the sale of houses—a general discussion of which I am afraid you would rule out of order, Mr. Speaker—but also the constitutional position under which at the present moment the Ministry of Health and Local Government administers the various housing laws by issuing circulars to local housing authorities giving advice and instruction, none of which have to be laid before this House and none of which can be prayed against in the House if hon. Members are opposed to them. I suggest that the issue which causes this to be raised is of such vital importance that we ought to have a new procedure for dealing with instructions issued by the Department.
At present any local housing authority can sell any of its houses if it likes provided that it gets the market price, "the best price" according to the wording of the Act. In other words, the Act applies to the municipal authorities in the case of municipal houses the same principles as are applied to any private landlord. There has been some suggestion that that is not quite the position, but in the Committee upstairs the Minister of Housing himself said:
…but the whole purpose of subsection (1) is to remove the obligation to sell at market values….—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1952; c. 284.]
The value at which the houses are to be sold is to be left to schemes prepared by the local housing authorities and accepted and endorsed by the Minister. We suggest that this is such a radical

change in the financial relationships of local authorities—at any rate in relation to housing—that it ought not to be left merely to the issue of circulars by the Minister and to his agreement to schemes within the four walls of the Ministry without this House being consulted.
I do not suggest that there will be a large number of municipal houses sold. Already a large number of local housing authorities have indicated that they will not use the powers which this Bill gives them. That might just as well have been left out of the Bill because it had nothing to do with its main purpose, which is to increase the housing subsidy. The largest of our local authorities have said that they are unlikely ever to agree to the sale of municipal houses, either to tenants or to speculating housing societies or to building societies. However, I have no doubt that there will be some, and I have no doubt that a number of reactionary Conservative local authorities will jump at the opportunity of getting rid of some of their municipal houses under the plea that by so doing they will save some rate changes.
Discussions about this are going on now between the Minister and the local authorities associations and a circular is to be issued so we are told. That circular will apparently be a secret document, at any rate so far as hon. Members of this House are concerned. For 40 years I have been in close touch with what has happened in municipal life in and around London and in the south of England, but I have not seen the draft circular yet and, as far as I know, nobody else has seen it, at any rate on these benches.
I mention that because this matter was discussed upstairs in Standing Committee and I asked whether a copy of the circular would be laid on the Table before becoming operative. We want to see the terms and conditions, if there are to be any, upon which local authorities will sell municipal houses. The reply I received from the Parliamentary Secretary was that it will not be laid upon the Table though there may be a copy in the Library. Yet even that is to be done only after the circular has been discussed with 'the local government associations and some agreement reached.
That is not good enough. This House should not allow houses to be sold which have been built, not only with public


money but subsidised by State funds, before it sees the conditions of any large scheme for sale and before that becomes operative. Therefore, I ask the House to accept this Amendment. It provides that a draft of any Order endorsing the sale of municipal houses, must be laid before this House before it is agreed and put into operation. That is a reasonable proposition to make.
I admit that in many ways it is a great change from the procedure under which local government housing in this country has been conducted in the many years during which public authorities have built houses, but we have never before had the proposition that municipal authorities should he compelled to sell houses at less than the proper price—in other words to give away monies which ought to go into the pocket of the local authority. I am sure that nobody on the Government benches would suggest that private owners of houses should be compelled by law to adopt that procedure. In fact, they believe the opposite. They think it is right that people engaged in business should be able to squeeze the market for the last possible penny.
7.0 p.m.
According to the party opposite, it is all right for all the big combines and for the monopolies, upon which the Monopolies Commission have reported, who think that making an enormous fortune is the greatest feat in life. But it is all wrong, apparently, when municipal houses, built with municipal money and with municipal energy, are to be sold. Then, these authorities are to be told, "You must not sell at the price which the houses will obtain in the market"—to use the words of the Act:
at the best price … that can reasonably be obtained"—
"but you must sell them at something a good deal less." I am not at all surprised that the Minister has been having some very lengthy discussions with the local government associations as to a circular which will embody the principles which are laid down in the Bill in its present form.
It would be unfair to the local authorities to do what the Bill suggests. If it is to be done, I suggest that the circular ought to be laid on the Table of the House, in the light of day, so that the House and the whole country can see

the kind of jiggery pokery which. I suspect, is likely to go on in some parts of the country in connection with the sale of municipal houses.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to refer to the difficulties that we are placed in. In speaking on Second Reading, I referred to the necessity for general Regulations and to the fact that the conditions of sale should not vary from region to region. Indeed, as Members of the Committee upstairs know, we pressed the Minister for the advice that he was going to give to local authorities in the circular.
We did have some information on that subject. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary was interrupted 34 times when he attempted to convey it to us. He will notice if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT that I was one of those who waited patiently to the end, and I cannot be associated with the irresponsible enthusiasm of my hon. Friends or with the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not man enough to stand his ground and give us the whole story.
We have been very interested in the circular. I believe that the Minister himself said he thought that by the time we reached this present stage, the matter would be common knowledge among local authority organisations and that we who were in touch with them would be in a position to deploy our arguments. But we are not, in fact, in that position. I am not accusing the Minister of bad faith. I may be wrong, or it may be that the local authorities are obstinate—I do not know.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Has the hon. Member seen the circular?

Mr. Pannell: I will come to that. I put down a Question today, and the Parliamentary Private Secretary informed me that he had sent copies to two of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and I understood that I was entitled to a sight of it. But it is marked "Confidential," and presumably—we wish to observe propriety in this matter—I am not free to disclose to the House what is in it.
This raises a point of very great constitutional importance. I have part of the circular in my hand, but I shall not read


out the general body of it. I shall read merely the general conditions on what the Minister means by "Confidential." I wonder whether the House approves of this. The right hon. Gentleman says:
N.B. The confidential marking of this paper is not intended to prevent the usual range of circulation of Bill papers within an association—
that is, the local authority association that we are discussing—
but it is desirable that the precise minimum figures of extra costs establishing title to grant as outlined in paragraph 5 should not be made common knowledge and, in particular, should not be communicated to contractors in the building and civil engineering industry.
That seems fair enough, but what I say is that at this stage, when we are laying down main principles, Members of Parliament are not in a position to debate the general conditions that are laid down for the local authorities. Bearing in mind the row that took place in the House last week, it seems to me as if the Minister is attempting to do a sort of "Alexander" in reverse.
When we were occupying the other side of the House, certain hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was one of them, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was another—were always taking us very much to task about delegated legislation. We used to have the late Lord Chief Justice and the new despotism quoted against us. This is very remarkable. This is not just an ordinary Bill that carries on a course of conduct to which we are accustomed. The selling of council houses is an abrupt departure from custom, and I suggest, therefore, that all the information should be before the House at the time.
One has only to consider the great variety of things that may arise in the selling of houses—questions about freehold and leasehold, the value at which a house should be sold, and which houses should be offered for sale. In addition, there is the general division, which the Minister laid down upstairs, by which he was to give a different basis for the selling of council houses that were built up to 1945 to those that were built after 1945. Because the Minister has hamstrung us by saying that this is a completely confidential matter, we are not in

the position today to deploy our arguments, in the way that we are given to understand we should be allowed to do, before the Bill goes to another place.
I understand, as a result of a Question that I put down today—but of course, it was not reached—that it is the Minister's intention to release the circular to Members of the House on the same day that he releases it for publication to local authorities. I should not have thought that that was a good course. I agree that in the present day and age, with the multiplicity of statutes that come before us, a good deal of delegated legislation is necessary; but it is still necessary that the maximum amount of information should be before the House at the time that we consider these matters. I take it there is no difference of opinion on that with hon. Members opposite.
I do not say that we have been treated with scant discourtesy—I do not believe that the Minister intended to do that—but that we on this side believe that this is a matter of very high constitutional importance and that a circular is not sufficient. At least, it should be laid in a way that would give us subsequently or from time to time the right, if necessary, to speak against the Minister's Regulations.
The Minister has a tremendous advantage. In effect, he has let loose on the local authorities a circular laying down the terms and conditions in which the sale of council houses is to take place.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: After discussion with local authority representatives.

Mr. Pannell: Not after, but during the discussion. Had it been after, there would have been something different. We had exactly the same position on Second Reading. The Minister gave us certain elements that went to make up the figure of the subsidy, but he did not give us all the elements. At that time, the basis of the subsidy was, presumably, confidential. I gave certain figures myself, but I should not have been free to give them without abuse of procedure had it not been that only the day before I found that those figures had crept into a professional journal. So, in effect, I was not divulging anything.
This sort of idea by which the Minister can negotiate with a set of local authorities' representatives and tell Parliament afterwards and that we can argue in a kind of rarefied atmosphere is completely fantastic. I hope that if the Amendment does nothing more it will at least ensure that there is a more sensible method adopted in the future.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), who moved the Amendment, appeared to be under an entire misapprehension as to its effect. He constantly said that if the Amendment were made, the Minister would be obliged to place before the House any Orders giving agreement to schemes when local authorities asked his consent for selling houses, and this Amendment would oblige him to seek the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Pannell: General consent.

Mr. Powell: I am going to draw the distinction which the hon. Member for Clapham failed to draw, and which I think is important. Under the existing Act the Minister can give consent in response to a proposal by a local authority. If this Amendment were carried there would be nothing to prevent the Minister giving consent to dozens or hundreds of schemes without coming anywhere near the House.

Mr. Gibson: Perhaps the hon. Member will also agree that houses for which consent for sale has been agreed under those conditions must be houses for which the best price obtainable is obtained.

Mr. Powell: That is not a consequence of this Amendment.

Mr. Gibson: I did not say that it was.

Mr. Powell: We are discussing the Amendment and not some other part of the Clause although as the hon. Member for Clapham did misrepresent—quite unintentionally—the effect of the Clause in regard to the best price, perhaps I should point out that the Clause as it stands does not compel a local authority to obtain less than the best price. It only enables the local authority to do so if it wishes to do so. Not to be obliged to do one thing is not the same as being compelled to do another. If I am not obliged to go to York, I am not com-

pelled to remain in London. All that the Clause does is to remove the obligation to obtain the best price; it is still possible for local authorities to put up to the Minister schemes under which they would be obtaining the best price.

Mr. Gibson: I quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. The Minister said that the
whole purpose of subsection (1) is to remove the obligation to sell at market values."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1952; c. 284.]
If that is not intended to be put into operation, why put it in the Bill at all?

Mr. Powell: If one removes the obligation to sell at the market price one lays open the possibility of selling at any price up to and including the market price. The Minister's expression was entirely accurate. It removes an obligation but it does not, as the hon. Member for Clapham suggested, compel sale at some price below the market price.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will the hon Member allow me—

Mr. Powell: I am anxious to pass from that point, because we are not strictly in order in dealing with it as it is not involved in the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Member imply, by making that point, that he agrees that a local authority should even have the power to sell a house at less than the best possible market price?

Mr. Powell: Yes.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Member agree that the local authority should have the power almost to give houses away?

Mr. Powell: I certainly agree that, subject to the consent of the Minister, a local authority should not be obliged in present conditions, if it wants to sell a house and the sale is approved, to obtain the best market price.
If I may now return to the effect of the Amendment, which is not concerned with price, but which is concerned with the giving of permission, I think the House should be clear that this Amendment only deals with general consent. Even if it were carried, it would still be possible for the Minister to give consent to the sale of thousands of municipal houses without coming anywhere near this House.

Mr. Thomas: To make his contention perfectly clear, would the hon. Member indicate what existing powers he has in mind in making that statement?

Mr. Powell: Yes, they are the existing powers referred to in the Amendment itself and found in Section 79 and Section 86 of the Housing Act, 1936. A great point was made by the mover and seconder of the Amendment that the Minister's power under this Clause of giving consent and attaching conditions to the consent was really delegated legislation.
That, I submit, is a wrong use of the idea of delegated legislation. Delegated legislation occurs where the power to legislate is conferred by a statute upon a Minister. What is happening here, is that the statute itself gives the Minister the right in any particular case or generally to say whether or not he will give his consent and subject to what conditions he will give it.
If to do that is delegated legislation, I suggest that the previous Minister of Health, in making it known to local authorities generally that no consent would be forthcoming under Section 79 of the Housing Act, 1936, was indeed taking upon himself not merely to exercise delegated legislation but, in effect, to suspend or repeal the provisions of an Act of Parliament without coming to this House at all.

Mr. Albert Evans: May I point out that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) issued that circular he did add the proviso that he should only give consent under special circumstances.

Mr. Powell: On the contrary, he intimated that in existing conditions he was not prepared to entertain such propositions at all. In saying that, he was departing from the spirit and possibly even from the letter of a statute which bound him to consider each particular case and in each case to give or withold his consent.

Mr. Evans: To get the matter quite clear I think that if the hon. Member reads the terms of the circular again he will see that my right hon. Friend not only mentioned existing circumstances but also said, "except in particular cases."

Mr. Powell: Well, the hon. Member will at any rate agree it was a remarkable coincidence that in more than six years no single proposition was found to fulfil any such conditions.

Mr. Thomas: Is the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) implying or stating that the former Minister of Health actually violated the law of the land as it then existed in not giving consent as he thinks it ought to have been given?

Mr. Powell: I am saying that in issuing a general intimation to local authorities that he was not prepared to entertain applications under Section 79 of the Housing Act the previous Minister was not so much carrying out delegated legislation as in effect altering the intention of an Act of Parliament. That is my contention.

Mr. Thomas: But that statement—

Mr. Speaker: This may be very interesting, but it is rather wide of the purposes of the Amendment which we are discussing.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. I think that Members on this side of the House are certainly entitled to object to a Member making general statements and then proceeding to draw conclusions which in our opinion are in direct conflict with the actual facts of the case, unless, of course, when he draws those conclusions we are permitted to challenge them, or unless he is not allowed to proceed in making those statements.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything very objectionable has been said.

Mr. Powell: It will be within the knowledge of Members familiar with the Housing Acts that there are in existence numerous provisions of those Acts which give the Minister power to attach conditions to his consent to local authorities behaving in one way or another. To quote only one example, the advance of money for housing purposes under Section 91 of the 1936 Act may be consented to, subject to conditions.
It would be an impossible situation if the nature of those conditions, which are subject to changing circumstances, had to be defined in detail in regulations and had to be approved by both Houses. It


is of the nature of administrative efficiency in all Measures like this that the Minister should be able, in consultation with the local authorities, to give them guidance. If, whenever he gives them guidance, he has to frame it in the legal terms of regulations and obtain the assent of Parliament, then that guidance will be much more inflexible and much more rarely given.
The circular-making practice of Ministers of Housing and Local Government is, in the experience of local government, a most valuable one. Its very informality enables the Minister to guide instead of direct. I hope, therefore, that we shall do nothing this evening to bring in rigidity and compulsion where flexibility and guidance are required.

Miss Jennie Lee: I very much hope that the House will agree to this Amendment, which has been convincingly moved and seconded by my colleagues. I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and I am still not quite certain whether he has misunderstood the terms and the purpose of this Amendment or whether he understands it too well.
I represent a constituency adjoining his own, and I am very much concerned that I, along with other Members of Parliament, should know if any local authority in Great Britain is in a position or imagines itself to be in a position to sell council houses. I have the best opportunity of knowing of that situation if the matter has to be brought before this House. There is a broader issue involved—

Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that this Amendment will not oblige the Minister to bring it before the House. Even if this Amendment is accepted the Wolverhampton Corporation could put up a scheme for selling 1,000 houses and consent could be given without the Minister coming near the House?

Miss Lee: In this matter we have to consider in the House of Commons the question of price as well of consent. What I am concerned about at the moment is not price, although it is very important that we shall have means of seeing that property that is being built by public subsidy is not sold below the market value.
To a Member representing a constituency like my own, which the hon. Member knows fairly well, it will be a very serious thing indeed if we find such a lopsided development of housing opportunity in Great Britain that some authorities feel that they can sell houses while others of us in an area like that of my own constituency, which caters predominantly for miners, still has a large list of miners waiting for homes.
As the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister know, the Cannock Urban District Council is a good, competent housing authority. I have received, in correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary, a statement, which is true, that it has an exceptional reputation for making the best possible use of its houses by encouraging changes of tenancy. We have been able to take maximum advantage of every licence we have been given and of local building materials and labour available to us by changing around tenancies in pre-war and post-war council houses.
If houses are sold it is reducing the pool from which these switches can be made according to family needs. It will be very serious indeed if important industrial areas such as some of us represent in this House find that while making a good job of their local allocations they are still in sore need of extra houses while the housing situation in other areas—usually areas of a more residential nature—is such that they find themselves so much in advance of our industrial areas that they can afford to sell houses.
We on this side of the House, as was made plain by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when he was Minister of Health, and other Labour Minsters, have no objection in principle to the sale of council houses. We believe that in time we ought to have sufficient houses available for the families in this community to enable people all over Great Britain to have the choice of whether they wish to own their house or be tenants. But we still have to watch very carefully a situation in which some local authorities, very often in residential areas, may feel that they have been so favoured by circumstances, or if one cares to put it that way, so neglectful of other people whose needs are very great for a house to rent and cannot possibly afford to buy a house, that they are at one stage of development while we are tagging along behind them.
If there are to be any priorities and advantages they should go to the essential industrial areas. I am anxious that these matters, both in terms of price and consent, should be brought specifically before the House because at the moment we are not encouraging additional labour to be brought in from outside to any authority area because that adds to the price of the houses. But if we exhaust our local labour and local sources of material in essential industrial areas, and still find an urgent need it is far better, in the country's interests, that we should spend money and if need be pay additional subsidies to get the houses where they are most needed.
We have to consider not merely the maximum number of houses, but whether those houses are in the places where they are most needed and available for the people who most need them. Because there is still no general demand or market in this country for council houses to buy, and as we have not yet met the essential needs of working people who need houses to let, I am most anxious that the House should agree to this Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: The point which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) missed is the very important departure that this Clause makes in one of the fundamental sectors of good local government. It is perfectly true that under the 1936 Act the Minister has the power to give his consent to the sale of houses, but he has that power subject to the overriding condition in the Act that the sale must be at what is a recognised price, namely, the best possible price obtainable.
In other words, a safeguard was put in the Act to the effect that no local authority could sell an important asset, built and owned for the public, except at the best possible price. That is a principle that goes right through the whole of local government—not only in the field of housing, but through all the work of public bodies that are trustees for the ratepayers on whose behalf they administer what is held in common by the community. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing in this Clause is making a fundamental departure from that, in allowing sales at prices below the market price.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: On a point of order. Is any of this really in order, in the sense that it is admitted all round that the Minister has the power to do this with particular consent; while this Amendment is to deal solely with general consent.

Mr. Speaker: I was waiting for the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to develop his point. We have, of course, already passed lines 9 to 14 of this Clause, which really deals with the matter the hon. Member is discussing, but I thought that what he was saying was by way of preamble to something more relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Sparks: Further to that point of order. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, of course, that the Amendment is worded:
… no general consent shall be given under this subsection otherwise than by an order stating any conditions of the consent….
One of the conditions of the consent involves the fixing of a price, and, therefore, I do not see how we can discuss the question of general consent without at the same time having regard to the conditions which the Minister will attach to the consent, and the conditions bear a relationship to the price for which the Minister says the local authority may sell that house.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member misunderstands me. Subsection (1) of the Clause was debated a long time in Committee and was agreed to, and now at this stage of the consideration of the Bill we have passed it, and that is the subsection which allows the local authorities not to get the best price, and that is the point that, I thought, the hon. Member for Widnes was making, although, as I say, I thought he was making it by way of preamble to something more relevant to later parts of the Clause.

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have allowed to creep into my voice —partly because of certain physical limitations I am suffering from—any diminution of the point I was making, which was meant to be a factual statement of what had already been decided. We have decided to depart from the principle of the best price, and that is an entirely new departure, and it is that entirely new departure that justifies the


suggestion that no conditions affecting price should be laid down except with the consent of Parliament.
We had in the 1936 Act a condition regulating the price enshrined in it. We want at least to have it enshrined in some Statutory Instrument open for examination by the House—as we do in the case of fixing the prices of all sorts of odd and miscellaneous things that come before us in the midnight hours in Prayers. Yet the sale of capital assets of the value of, perhaps, £1,500 or £2,000, at some price below the market price, is not considered sufficiently important to come before the House. That is the point which my hon. Friends have in mind, I think, in putting forward this Amendment, and their suggestion is—and it does seem to me, with respect, entirely reasonable—that the Minister should lay down a series of conditions.
We got into great difficulties upstairs because suddenly, in the middle of the discussion on this question, the Parliamentary Secretary arose to give us a resume of these very complicated conditions which was open to all sorts of comment and analysis. There was a complaint that he was interrupted. Of course he was interrupted, because what he was producing was something new, of which we could have known nothing at all from a perusal of the Bill, and which he produced suddenly out of the hat; and he told us, to our astonishment, that this was going around to the local authorities, although there was no way in which Parliament would be able to express an opinion as to whether it was a right and fair way of dealing with public money and public assets. Therefore, it seems to me very important and necessary a safeguard, one to which there can be no possible objection, that these conditions should be put down in a Statutory Instrument open to the normal process of Prayer in the House.
It may be perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, that these conditions could not in law govern the sale of an individual house on an individual consent, but one has for the sake of argument to make an assumption that any Minister of Housing and Local Government is an honest man, and I do not think any Minister is going to give a consent for the sale of a particular house on conditions which are in flat

contradiction of those laid down in general and which are considered appropriate for the general line of council houses.
I understand that it would meet with your approval, Mr. Speaker, if I were, at the risk of boring the House, to develop the arguments which prompted me and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to put down an Amendment to page 3, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no general consent shall be given to any local authority or authorities until the Minister shall have approved a scheme prescribing—

(a) the type of house to be sold,
(b) the method of allocating to purchasers, and
(c) the disposal of the proceeds of the sales.
It was meant really as an attempt to help the Minister, and to clarify for his benefit and for the benefit of the House what exactly is going to happen if the Bill is to work.
The present position under the existing law is. I think, quite clear. Any local authority can come to the Minister with an individual house and say, "We want to sell this house. Can we have your permission to do so?" The Minister, treating that particular case, can approve or disapprove. That is the existing position in the law. The discussion upstairs was a little bit confused on this point because the Minister, unfortunately, misread his brief, and at one stage rather confused the Committee into thinking that there was a possibility under the existing law of having a general consent. That, beyond all argument, I think, is not true.
There can be only particular consent for a particular house. The Minister does not like that, and he told us upstairs, and explained, that he did not like it, and he gave the reasons which, no doubt, he thought were perfectly adequate, and with which, even if one does not accept them, one can at least sympathise. He said there were not the means or the facilities to look at each house and decide whether it was a right case for consent. In the poetic way the Minister has of addressing us, he said:
The issue would have to he sent to the Minister for decision. He is supposed to say, 'You cannot sell No. 2, Acacia Avenue, It must be No. 3, Acacia Avenue, where John lives—the boy who plays the cornet in the


silver band.' I cannot take upon myself so intimate a knowledge of all that happens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th May, 1952; c. 290.]
So the Minister decides he is not able to deal with each individual house. He says, "Provided you can conform with certain conditions I am prepared to allow you to sell any of your houses or a certain proportion of your houses as the case may be"—in other words, a general consent to a particular authority. But then there is a third stage: it is to give a general consent to all authorities to sell council houses, and the one thing that I have been quite unable to discover is whether it is the Minister's intention to give a general consent to all authorities or whether it is his intention to give only consent to particular authorities. He said:
I do not propose to give a general permission.
I took that to mean that he was proposing to look at each authority. Later he said:
…I must retain, as it is my duty to do, the power and the right to examine each scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1952; c. 249–50.]
From that I rather gathered that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make each local authority put up a scheme showing exactly the conditions under which they would operate for the sale of houses and that he would say to each authority, "If you accept that scheme, then I am prepared to give you permission to sell your houses."
If I am correct in what I think the Minister intends to do, the purpose of my Amendment is to suggest certain matters which ought to go into a scheme of this character before it can possibly be safe for the right hon. Gentleman to give his permission. I have suggested three points which ought to be treated. They are all points which arose in the Committee and upon which the Minister implied that he would make regulations controlling them. In regard to any general consent we ought to see that these conditions are included in the scheme.
The first is the very important matter of the type of house which will be sold. Are these to be old houses sold to sitting

tenants, or are they to be new houses? The Minister said about that:
Of course, it is part of the proposal—an essential part of the proposal—that where any schemes are put up and approved"—
again, apparently there is to be a scheme—
the sale should take place to existing tenants.
Later the Minister said:
First, there are existing houses. There, of course, we shall insist, as part of an agreement to any scheme, that they shall only be sold to the tenants.
Are we then to understand in regard to existing houses that only sitting tenants will be considered? If so, how will the Minister secure that unless he looks at the proposals which each individual authority puts up?
Later the Minister said:
I should much prefer to leave it to cover all these forms of scheme, and in any particular scheme to reserve the right of the Minister and the duty to consider whether it is a good or a bad scheme.
Again, apparently the Minister is going to look at each scheme and judge its merits. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) interrupted and asked:
Does the Minister intend to approve or disapprove in every case?
The right hon. Gentleman said:
No, we shall come to that later, but there will be a general plan put up by a municipal authority.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1952; c. 267.]
Again, each individual local authority will put up its plan, in which case there is no need for the Clause dealing with a general permission to authorities. All we required is a general permission to an authority.
The next point that arose was the method of allocating to purchasers. My hon. Friends and I feel very strongly that it should not be possible for people to jump the housing queue because they have the ready money with which to buy a house. We feel that the only people who should be eligible to buy a house are those whose position on the housing list would in any case justify their obtaining a house. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say in the Committee Stage that he would only approve sales to sitting tenants in the case of existing houses. He said:
…if we are to operate in this way, we must lay down these considerations, such as


the sale to a sitting tenant, or, in the case of new houses, to somebody taken from the housing list who might have been granted a private licence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th May, 1952; c. 307.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would only allocate new houses to people already on the housing lists. I want to know whether that is to be included in any scheme which the Minister is to approve.
7.45 p.m.
The final point is what happens to the proceeds of the sale of houses. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), the right hon. Gentleman said:
The point does not arise on this Clause, but the plan we are discussing is that the Minister must be satisfied that a reasonable credit is made to the housing revenue account on account of the sale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1952; c. 258.]
That baffled me, and I hope the Minister will explain what it means. I do not pretend to be an accountant, but I thought that one of the things one learnt in one's cradle if one was going to be an accountant was not to confuse capital items and income items. The housing income account is a revenue account in which the proceeds from rents and subsidies are set off against the proceeds of the cost of management and the annual charges on the repairs funds and so on. How can one make payments into a revenue account out of the capital sales of the houses? It is a very confusing accounting procedure.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to put the money in the housing revenue account, where will he put it? Will the money be used for the relief of the general rate fund or will it be put into a suspense account to be set off against the cost of building other houses? It is an important point and one which may get local authorities into difficulties with the district auditor. The regulations controlling the setting up of suspense accounts are complicated and highly technical, and local authorities need firm advice on what to do with the money.
Before considering any consents to the sale of houses the Minister should be satisfied that these three points are clearly put in the plans submitted by local authorities. The type of house to be sold should be clearly stated and so should the type of person to whom it is

to be sold; the limitation in the case of the old house should be the sitting tenant and in the case of the new house to people on the housing list who would otherwise be entitled to a private licence. The Minister must also satisfy himself that the proceeds of the sales will be used properly by the local authorities.
What alarms many of us about the procedure is that it is wide open to abuse. While most local authorities can be relied upon to administer their revenues and expenditures in a statesmanlike and honest way, there are opportunities under the scheme, if it is loosely administered, for houses to be sold under the counter at "knock-down" prices to people because they happen to be friends of the chairman of the housing committee. What is worse, the scheme is open to the suspicion that that sort of thing may happen, and there will be gossip and the suspicion will be spread by those who have not been lucky enough to get one of these houses.
If the Minister wants the proposal to work he must look at these details very carefully. He should come to us with a more clear-cut scheme than this and much more evidence that he has thought about the practical administrative problem.

Mr. R. Ewart: In the Committee stage we were in the difficulty that the Minister advised us that he had not yet framed his proposals for advice and guidance to local authorities. He said that they would be distributed to local authorities in a circular and that the circular would lay down certain conditions. The difference in the position in the Committee stage and the position in which we are at the moment is that the Minister has drafted his circular. It is being supplied to certain hon. Members of this House under a confidential cover, and it cannot be discussed here.
Tonight, when this Bill departs from us after its Third Reading we shall be no wiser than we were in Committee as to the intentions of the Minister; although those intentions will be clearly defined in circular form for issue at some future date simultaneously to local authorities and to hon. Members. If that is so, and that point, which has already been made by at least two of my hon. Friends, has gone undisputed,


we can only glean from the speeches by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Committee what might be laid down in this circular, this secret document, which has yet to be submitted to the local authorities, and which the right hon. Gentleman will arrange to make available in the Library at the same time as it is sent to the local authorities.
Clause 3 alters the position concerning the sale of houses to local authorities. It says that no longer must the best price or rent be obtained for the sale of houses or the sale of land, but that the Minister will give directions as to the future policy. When questioned on that matter, the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement to the Committee which rather belies the statement made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell) tonight. The hon. Member, in effect, said that while Section 79 of the Housing Act will no longer obtain, local authorities can and may obtain any price up to the market value, or even the scarcity value of the house. But the Parliamentary Secretary when questioned on this matter, said:
…there will be two categories of houses: those built before May, 1945, and those after—those built before May, 1945, when building costs were low and those after, where the building costs were inflated. In the case of those houses built, say before May, 1945—although the date has not finally been fixed—the price will be 'X' years purchase at the standard annual rate payable for the house immediately before the date of sale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th May, 1952; c. 229.]
What the Parliamentary Secretary said, quite definitely, was that houses built before May, 1945, primarily pre-war houses, would be sold at a price of X years' purchase at the standard annual rent payable for the house immediately before the date of sale; and that will preclude local authorities from obtaining the price up to the market value for the scarcity value of the building. In the other category there would be the price of the annual cost obtaining at the time of building for houses built after May, 1945.
Are we to assume that in this private and confidential document which has been submitted to certain hon. Members of this House, and which will not become available to other hon. Members until it has been laid in the Library, the

conditions laid down by the Parliamentary Secretary are the conditions which will be recommended in the guidance and advice by the Minister? That is the first question I would ask.
If that is so, then the price of the houses built pre-1945, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will be a knock-down price. That will give the purchasers of such houses a great advantage over other members of the community who could obtain a licence, and who do not want to bear the actual cost, or the comparable cost, of such houses built before 1945, but who will get houses built at the expense of local authorities at the knockdown price of X years on the rental value immediately before the date of the sale of the house.
To continue our deductions as to the directions which may be given, it will seriously alter the present procedure of allocating local authority houses. At the present time the system throughout the country exercised by local authorities is to the effect that the greater the need of the applicants the greater priority will cover them. The Minister says, "I do not want that to obtain any longer. If a man is living in overcrowded conditions, or in slum conditions, that is not to be the only consideration that will get him a house through the local authority." In the Committee stage the Minister said he would determine that consideration should be given and houses sold to suitable persons taken from the housing list.
It does not necessarily follow that a person needs to have an urgent housing problem to get his name placed on the housing list. The very fact that he requires to occupy a local authority house is sufficient justification for his name to be placed on the list. Are we to assume from the statements made by the Minister to the Committee that any person having had his name appended to the housing list can purchase a house, if he can produce the necessary money; and is that to be to the detriment to those on the housing list not in the favourable position of being able to put down their deposit and purchase a house?
Is the existing priority system of allocation to be disregarded, because the Minister is anxious that certain houses either built for existing tenants or offered to existing tenants now, or houses, which


have yet to be built, shall be sold to prospective buyers and that the qualification under such scheme as the Minister has in mind is that the method of jumping the housing queue will be according to the financial ability of the prospective occupier to purchase his own house?
The Minister has made himself perfectly clear on this matter. He said that there are three types of houses which may be sold—

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. I wish to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that there are not sufficient Members in the Chamber to form a quorum.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is out of order at this hour.

Mr. Ewart: There are three types of houses which may be sold. There are the existing houses and there the Minister was insistent, as part of an agreement to any scheme, that they shall be sold to the tenant. In principle, we have no objection to that. We have no objection to persons occupying their own houses. But we do object that during the housing shortage, houses owned by local authorities, and built for the specific purpose of meeting the most necessitous demand, shall be open for sale.
The Minister referred to existing houses which are vacant and new houses which are not yet occupied—that is, houses which are in the process of building but not yet allocated. This introduces an entirely new principle, compared with that envisaged in previous housing Acts. The practice then was that local authorities, having built their housing estates and having had them occupied by council tenants, could with the consent of the Minister designate a certain number of them as houses which could be purchased by the sitting tenants.
8.0 p.m.
The explanation of this principle by the Minister is that not only houses which are at present occupied might be open for purchase by the tenant, but houses which have not yet been built may be reserved for owner-occupation by persons who jump the housing queue and who are in a favourable position to purchase the houses. My local authority has a severe housing problem. There are at least 10,000 people on its housing list who want to occupy council houses. Of these

10,000 applicants many are living either in slum conditions or in overcrowded conditions.
These are people who simply cannot afford to purchase their own homes. They head the housing queue. These are the people who will be over-ridden, if the Minister's direction is put into operation by local authorities, by reason of the fact that certain people can afford to purchase their own houses.
A survey taken in Sunderland in 1946 showed that of 2,444 houses, 33.7 per cent. of the families were overcrowded and a further 11.7 per cent. were borderline cases. In a survey of 4,772 corporation houses taken at the same time showed that the houses were occupied by 5,872 families, of which 10.3 per cent. were overcrowded and 4.6 per cent. were borderline cases.
My authority look upon this as a most serious problem which has been inherited from previous Tory administrations. The local authority are jealous of the fact that they have ignored all representations made by their Tory opponents and the present Minister of Housing and Local Government that they should offer their houses for sale. They did that because in this humane and urgent problem there are 3,951 houses accommodating 9,108 families of 39,000 people who live in the worst slum areas of the town.
If the Minister's direction is that which he intimated during the Committee stage of the Bill then local authorities in a similar position to that at Sunderland will be in an invidious position. They will not be able completely to carry out their slum clearance programmes because, in the event of the Tory control of such houses, a Tory dominated administration could, and probably would, allocate sections of housing estates for sale, or build small housing estates for owner occupation. People living in slum conditions and in overcrowded houses would have to go to the back of the housing queue in preference to those with ability to purchase.
This is a thoroughly bad principle. It departs from the relevant section of the Act which gives safeguards in the purchase price of council houses. It extends the principle not only to sale at prices to be determined by the Minister, outside the consideration of the House of Commons,


but it gives the right to local authorities to widen the ambit of their housing allocation to prospective occupiers of council houses. That is something at which no other Act of Parliament ever hinted.
It places local authorities with urgent and acute housing problems in the position of having to decide whether their present high priority system of allocation should continue. If they decide, as they should, that it ought to continue, that means in effect that they say to the Minister that they will not operate according to his directions and advice because it is advice given without any conscious knowledge of the facts which obtain in local authority areas such as Sunderland.
It is advice and direction given because the Minister does not understand the urgency of the problem with which he is tinkering in this Bill. Indeed, he himself said so, during the Committee stage. He said:
It is one of our problems to get that variety of settlement and mixture of population, and it may even be desirable on an estate to have a few houses sold to the people whom we specially want to have there who are also in need." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th May, 1952; c. 307–8.]
The Minister must know that the housing list is not comprised entirely of certain sections of the community. It is not comprised of people living only in slum conditions, but also of people living in overcrowded conditions under sub-housing standards.
That covers all sections of the community. It is a broad cross-section. One might get the bank clerk, the local government employee, the dustman, the miner, the shipyard worker and the chemical worker. As a matter of fact, one might get the bank manager, the local Co-op manager and the manager of the local multiple stores. If they have not got a reasonable standard of housing they can put their names on the housing list.
The Minister says, because he knows so little about the problems confronting local authorities, that he wants a new principle introduced with a cross-section of the community. He is not conscious of the fact that that cross-section of the community is already represented on the local authority housing lists. The Minister should get the remedy in his own hands. If he wants to give a direction that the economic rent should be paid by those

above certain income levels, let him have the courage to make a suggestion to this House.
He has not had the courage to do so up to now, but his Parliamentary Secretary has gone into the country and has talked about an isolated case of a man with £3,000 a year—a civil servant I believe—who occupies a subsidised house. The Parliamentary Secretary has said, "We appeal to the citizenship of such people and ask them to offer to pay the economic rent."
There is one local authority in the North of England which has gone a little further than that. It has built certain types of houses where the economic rent obtains and where the housing list is sifted. When people come forward to make their claims for houses, if they do not qualify by virtue of their income to obtain a subsidised house, they are offered a non-subsidised house, and, if the Minister wants to make a condition of differential renting in housing, let him have the courage to come forward and suggest it.
Up to now, we have been entirely in the dark. We are dealing with a Bill on which the Minister has, in effect, said, "I am not going to tell the House of Commons what I intend to do. I have discussed the matter with the local authorities, I have produced a circular, and I have stated in that circular what my intentions are. That circular will go out to the local authorities after the House of Commons has given a Third Reading to the Bill, and, when the House of Commons, which is at present in the dark so far as my intentions are concerned, has given the Third Reading to the Bill, I will produce the circular and tell them what I am going to do."
That is most undemocratic, and it is most unworthy of the Minister that he should take up that position and treat the House of Commons with such contempt.

Mr. Donald Wade: I rise only to raise a point of interpretation. In the Amendment, we read that no general consent is to be given under this subsection. The words are "no general consent," and not "no consent." Under subsection (2), we read that the consent of the Minister may be given generally either


to all local authorities or to any authority, and either in relation to all houses or to any house or houses.
It would appear to me that much depends upon the word "generally." Under this Bill, the Minister has power to grant consent to a particular authority in respect of certain houses, but, if the word "generally" applies to all these consents, then no consent can be given under this Bill which is not a general consent. If that is so, then, if the Amendment is carried, no consent can be given unless the draft is laid and approved by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
In a case of a general scheme, I should favour the principle that it should be laid before Parliament before the consent is given by the Minister, but it seems to me that it will raise considerable complications if any consent under this Bill must, first of all, be laid before Parliament. Perhaps the Minister, in replying, will help me in interpreting that point?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: The real point and purpose of the Amendment arises from the fact that we are about to substitute a new principle for one that has been established for a considerable period of time in regard to the powers of local authorities to dispose of their properties at the best possible price.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) touched upon this in the remarks which he made earlier. It has been a well-established principle that local authorities must obtain the best price for any property which they sell. Now, the Minister, in the first subsection of this Clause, is deliberately destroying this fundamental principle. What is he substituting in its place? He is substituting his own discretion, contained in the words which appear in subsection (2):
the consent of the Minister may be given generally either to all local authorities or to any local authority or authorities and either in relation to all houses or to any house or houses, and may be given subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks expedient as to the price or rent to be obtained.
Therefore, we are substituting for a well-established and understood principle something which is vague and ill-defined.
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Minister is not given power in this Clause to substitute for the

best price a price which is too low, unreasonable and unjust, and which may lead to a great deal of profiteering in the sale of council houses on the part of those who purchase them from the local authorities.
We have not been able to get from the Minister any definite basis upon which, in giving consent to schemes for the sale of council houses, he will suggest a price at which the houses may be sold. It is quite true that, in the Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Minister had sent a circular to the national organisations of the local authorities making certain suggestions, but the Parliamentary Secretary, at column 229 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee, announced that the Minister was proposing, in lieu of the best price to be obtained, two other principles which would guide him in determining the price at which the local authority could sell a house.
One principle was that there should be 20 years' purchase at the standard annual rent of pre-1945 houses. The standard rent over 20 years would be taken as the basis for computing the price at which the Minister would agree that the house should be sold. For houses built since 1945, he proposed a different standard altogether. He proposed a standard of what he called the all-in cost to the local authority of providing the house. There is a grave anomaly between arriving at a ceiling price on the basis of 20 years' purchase at the standard annual rent and on the all-in cost of the house since 1945.
This principle, which it seems likely the Minister will approve, gives rise to the gravest consequences. Let me remind the House what it really means. A pre-war house built under the 1919 Act—and there are quite a lot of them—cost £1,200, which was the fairly general figure of the cost throughout much of the Greater London area. The net weekly rent was 18s. 6d., and, on the basis of 20 years' purchase, the Minister would lay down the figure of £960 at which the local authority could sell.
I know it is true that the Minister says that they may sell above that figure if they think fit, but, if that is the case, I do not see the necessity for his taking away the power from a local authority to obtain the best possible price. The


mere fact that he takes the obligation to sell at price indicates that he them to sell the house higher figure than the lays down as the price this type.
But the point is that a three-bedroom, parlour-type house of that description is worth in the market today anything from £2,000 to £2,500. Yet here is the Minister telling the local authorities that the price which he lays down for such a house is £960. At the end of five years the purchaser can sell that house for anything from £2,000 to £2,500, which means that he can make £1,000 or £1,500 profit on it at the end of the pre-emption period.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the local authority may sell the house at a higher figure than he himself lays down as the minimum figure. But in a matter of this kind there must be uniformity of practice among all local authorities. There will be many authorities who will take the Minister's figure, and he has no power to say to them that they must sell the house for a higher price than that. Many local authorities may be induced to sell a house which today is worth £2,500 for £960. There might be another local authority which will come along and say, "We will not sell the house for £960, but for £1,200 or £3,000."
That will mean that throughout the country we shall have local authorities adopting a varied basis for the sale of these dwellings, and all this irregularity will arise as a direct consequence of the Minister removing the fundamental principle of obtaining the best price which has been the basis adopted by local authorities in times past for the sale of such property.
The position becomes even worse in the case of a leasehold house. Supposing, for instance, that the Minister agrees to such a house being sold on the basis of a 99 years' purchase, that would mean that he would be telling the local authorities to charge not £960, but £760. In fixing figures of this description he is playing into the hands of people who may be disposed to have no regard for the interests of the local authorities and of the ratepayers in the

borough, and who may be disposed to sell houses at less than their cost to the local authority and to give to the new owner of such properties the power to profiteer at the public expense.
We have put down this Amendment because we believe that the Minister is wrong in taking it upon himself to do what he thinks is expedient and not what this House thinks is expedient, to substitute a basis for assessing the price at which a council house shall be sold which we know does not do justice to the ratepayers associated with the authority selling the house and which will give rise to a great variety of selling prices among the different local authority areas, and will, at the same time, provide the opportunity for very serious profiteering at the end of the pre-emption period.
I feel that the House is entitled to know what the Minister is proposing to do in regard to this question of the selling price before we give our consent to any proposal, because unless there is the power to bring the Minister's proposals before the House we shall have no power over him at all, even though we may know what he is going to do. To suggest that it is in the best interest of the ratepayers and of the local authorities that he should tell such authorities to sell a £2,500 house for £960 is completely wrong. The mischief really lies in the fact that the Minister has removed the long-established and well-known principle whereby local authorities must obtain the best price for properties which they sell.
By removing that principle and substituting for it a basis which is unfair to the local authorities and to the ratepayers, and which, as I say, will give rise to the great danger and scandal of profiteering at the end of the pre-emption period is, I believe, quite wrong. Therefore, before the principle becomes effective, the House should know what precisely the Minister proposes to put in place of the principle he is removing that when selling their dwellings local authorities should obtain the best price for them.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: We have had a very wide and fruitful discussion on this Amendment, and I am going to ask the Minister to be good enough to accept it. Before we go on to general matters, may I point out to the hon. Member


for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who graces our debates quite regularly and persistently, and who is a model to many of his colleagues who do not show an interest in local government matters, that the local government machine is an administrative machine which derives its authority from Parliament. Parliament makes the possibilties, and whether those possibilities are adopted or not depends upon the local authority concerned.
Even this Clause, to which we violently object, is one in which the Minister is not compelling local authorities to sell council houses; he is giving them the option to do so. The local government machine is in this way an administrative machine working within the framework of possibilities which Parliament creates for it.
The reason for our Amendment is that although local government works within these possibilities, in this problem of housing and housing finance a large sum of taxpayers' money has been used over a period of years, from the 1914–18 war, from the Addison Act of 1919, in creating a public asset. It is true, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, that even before this Bill, Ministers of Health and of Local Government and Planning had power to sell council houses, but they were particular sales and there was a requirement, which was considered to he a good business proposition and a protection for public money, that public assets being sold should be sold at the best possible price.
Under the Bill, we are allowing local authorities to sell their public assets at other than the best possible price. The Minister is quite right to do that, because otherwise some local authorities might enter into the speculative market and become profiteers as big as any private landlord or estate agent. The Minister is protecting the public against exploitation by the local authorities.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will my hon. Friend say how that is being done? If he looks at the Bill he will see that all it does is to repeal Section 79 (3) of the Act. It still leaves a council with full power to demand the best price or the best rent. Previously there was an obligation. Now local authorities can do it or not according to their own decision. The Minister is not getting rid of this power.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. and learned Friend is always very generous in giving us the benefit of his legal advice and opinion. I am most grateful to him and I am certain that more often than not it is right. But I look upon this not from the point of view of what are the legal problems and legal possibilities, but from the point of view of one who has been engaged in local government, who knows how it operates and who knows that sometimes one cannot see the wood for the trees because there is a lawyer as clerk.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That will not do. My hon. Friend was saying that the Minister had done something—namely, that he had removed the right of the local authority to insist upon the best rent or the best price. He has done nothing of the sort, and that is why I made the point.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. and learned Friend and I may be at variance but, as I understand—and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will give me the benefit of his further advice if I am incorrect—under existing legislation the local authority are required to obtain the best possible price when they sell. By this Bill the Minister is relieving them of that requirement; they are no longer required to do so.
We are to have the disposal of public assets which have been created by public money, and Parliament is to have no opportunity of saying whether or not the public welfare has been protected. I am sorry that for reasons of physical necessity I was out the Chamber during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) who, I understand, called attention to the general question of the confidential nature of the Minister's circular.
During discussions in the House today, and particularly in Committee upstairs, the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary were most courteous, most patient and most helpful. The Minister sent to both my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and I a copy of the circular which he proposes to send to local authorities. If I am repeating what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West I am sorry, but it is a fact that in Committee the Minister said that before we reached this stage there would have been discussions on the


subject with local authorities. He said that if there were reactions against the circular by local authority associations, we should know, because hon. Members on both sides are associated with those associations, who are not slow to make their representations to hon. Members. That, from my point of view, was quite a reasonable and valid answer.
The point I am making is this: I am personally, as are many other hon. Members, associated with various local authority associations. I think that they have taken the circular which the Minister has sent to them as confidential, in the sense that they have not disclosed it to those in close association with them. The Urban District Councils' Association, for example, of which I am a vice-president but not an elected member of its executive, have not discussed it with me, although, no doubt, the elected members of the executive have discussed it. Therefore, apart from the actual local authority associations, who have apparently kept it confidential to that extent, many of us have had no idea of their reactions to it, and no one has had any idea whatever of the terms which the Minister is likely to make to these local authorities.

Mr. Pannell: Does it not go further than that? The Minister has sent a circular, as a matter of courtesy, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). They know what is in the circular, but it is under the seal of confidence and, therefore, they cannot deploy their arguments—and neither can we—at this stage of the Bill as we intended we would. The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that if we knew the reactions of the local authorities, which we do know from time to time, we should have been able to deploy our arguments, but we cannot because the local authorities are bound by a pledge of confidence. My hon. Friend has seen the circular—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not making a speech and he should put his point shortly. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) is in possession of the House.

Mr. Pannell: This is the kernel of the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, who was not in the Chamber at the time, and has just said so, quite unwittingly misinterpreted what was said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can make his point, but not make a speech which interrupts another speech.

Mr. Pannell: I put it to my hon. Friend very shortly that the mere giving of a circular to him places him at a considerable disadvantage. If he had not had it he might have speculated upon it, but having got it he dare not do so.

Mr. Lindgren: I think that is stretching the matter too far. I hope that I am not breaking a confidence when I say that, so far as the general intentions of that circular are concerned, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, during the Committee stage, gave us what was near enough a general outline of what it was likely to be.

Mr. Albert Evans: On a point of order. Will you give us your guidance in this matter Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I understand that we are discussing a document which has been sent out by the Minister, a copy of which is in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not discussing any document sent out by the Minister; we are discussing an Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order. It is quite true that we are discussing the Amendment on the Order Paper and nothing else, but in the course of discussion of the Amendment constant reference has been made by a number of speakers to a secret or confidential document which is alleged to have some bearing upon the argument. I do not know whether there is any precedent for a debate in the House of Commons being conducted on the basis of some Members having information from the Government which is relevant to the subject of the discussion which they are forbidden by some obligation of confidence to disclose to the rest of us.

Mr. Pannell: They are bound to have.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not a point of order. What is before the House is the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Pannell: With very great respect to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would beg leave to disagree with it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may disagree with it, but he cannot challenge it, because I have made the Ruling.

Mr. Pannell: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Amendment before the House is for a procedure—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may make his comment upon it, but it is not a point of order upon which I have to decide.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Would it be in order to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you would accept a Motion to adjourn the debate in order to call attention to the fact that not all hon. Members are as well equipped as some are?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I cannot accept such a Motion.

Mr. Lindgren: I am sorry if I have put some hon. Members a little "offside."
Local government has been guided from time to time in its administration by circulars from the Minister. In general, day to day guidance of local authorities is a good method of administration, for it tends to a greater degree of uniformity and efficiency, and it has not been uncommon in the past for the usual courtesies to be extended between the two Front Benches about circulars—

Mr. David Logan: On a point of order. I wish to submit to you, Mr. Morris Hopkins—[Laughter.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Hon. Members need not laugh: when they have been in here as long as I have they will probably make greater mistakes.

Mr. S. Silverman: They will be lucky if they do not.

Mr. Logan: We are discussing an Amendment and we are told definitely

that there is a private document in existence which has a bearing on local government and the Clause with which we are dealing. I should like to know if there is any such document, and, if there is, whether it can be produced.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Logan: It is something that we want explained.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a comment by the hon. Member, and not a point of order.

Mr. Lindgren: The general administration of the Clause should not be by that circular but by an Order placed before the House which gives the House an opportunity of expressing its point of view about the terms and conditions of the proposed sale of council houses.

Lieut. - Colonel Marcus Lipton: Will my hon. Friend here and now seek release from the obligation of secrecy into which he has apparently entered in order to enable us to get on with the debate?

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. and gallant Friend can make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that this has been done in one case and that the secrecy obligation has been withdrawn.
As to the purpose of the Amendment, we desire that there should be an opportunity for Parliamentary discussion and Parliamentary settlement of broad details concerning conditions of sale. The Opposition are not opposed to people owning their own houses. We are all in favour of it in so far as they can afford to do so.
During the inter-war years we planned and organised collective schemes of houses for letting and they were not desirable schemes in which to introduce individual owner-occupancy, and those houses form a pool available for those who are normally unable to afford to purchase or have not sufficient capital resources with which to maintain a good standard of repair once they have purchased a house. Maintenance and repair after purchase is as important in house ownership as is the original purchase.
There are Acts of Parliament already on the Statute Book, like the 1923 Chamberlain Act and the Act of 1936, which


give local authorities an opportunity for tenant purchase schemes. As members of local authorities we on this side of the House, have, in fact, encouraged these schemes, and we should have no objection whatever to the Government encouraging local authorities to proceed with them as part of their housing activities. We have, however, to remember that we are concerned first with general priority for the housing of the people who are on the housing lists, and that that priority should be maintained.
8.45 p.m.
There is evidence that because of the general release of licences for building, local authorities are departing from the established priorities in this matter of house accommodation. A number of local authorities are giving a number of licences and are, in fact, advertising for persons who want licences to apply for them. There is no doubt that in certain instances housing needs are no longer real needs, and there is only the question of whether there is a desire for a licence to build a house.
I ask the Minister to accept this Amendment because we feel that Parliament should have an opportunity in this radical departure from the existing custom and because public money is involved of making general observations and improving the system.

Mr. H. Macmillan: We have had a long debate on this Amendment and I find myself, as one often does on Report stage, in some little difficulty because we have had to some extent a debate upon the Clause itself, to some extent a debate upon the Amendment immediately before the House, and in the case of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) who made an admirable speech, a debate upon an Amendment which he did not move. Between the Amendment that has been moved, the Amendment that has not been moved and the general principle underlying the Clause, we have had a wide debate, and I hope the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I cannot go over the whole range of topics as one would do in Committee on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
I was glad to notice the courteous and fair way in which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) conducted his case, and I should be very

sorry if he thought that anything I said or did in the previous stages in any way misled him. I was glad that both he and the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) agreed that, in principle, they had no objection to the sale of council houses. The hon. Lady thought that the time was not ripe; the hon. Gentleman thought perhaps that a special arrangement should be made, such as a special tenant purchase scheme. At any rate, there was no objection in principle.
The proposal for the sale of council houses to suitable persons, to existing tenants or to persons who can show the same housing need that they would show if they were given one of these private licences, which under all Administrations since the war have been given in varying proportions. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) who misrepresented, no doubt unintentionally, what the purpose was, which is clearly covered by what I have said.

Mr. Ewart: Allocating a house to a person who applies for a licence is a fundamentally different principle to allocating one to a person who qualifies by priority and by virtue of need.

Mr. Macmillan: The administration, both of my predecessors and of myself, is that council houses must not only go, but be seen to go, to people of comparable need. The only difference is in the proportion of the licences, and in the conditions underlying the granting of the licences.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: How can that principle be applied in the present instance?

Mr. Macmillan: Of course, my remark applies to the wider issues. I was saying that the hon. Member for Wellingborough and the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock are in agreement—although they do not agree upon all political subjects—that the sale of council houses in certain conditions can be a good thing. The hon. Lady said that the time was not ripe, which is perfectly arguable, but I do not agree with her that the time is not ripe. It would be foolish to say that in all parts of the country and in all kinds of localities conditions were equally suitable, but there may be places in which the time is ripe. I should like to leave to the local authorities themselves the


judgment as to when that time has come. I do not believe it is universal, and that is where we differ. We do not differ on the principle but in the application of it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The right hon. Gentleman says that the time is ripe in certain cases for the sale of houses. The sale of houses to whom?

Mr. Macmillan: I was coming to that point. I always thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman's profession was a rather leisurely affair, but he seems to show a little impatience. I am trying to show that our real difference is not one of principle but of application. I really must get on to the Amendment, but most of the discussion seems to have been about the Clause. It is worth remembering that what the Clause does, and what the House has now agreed to, is that the principal shall be that the local authority shall judge.
The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that I was going to compel local authorities to sell houses. I am sure he did not mean to say that, and that he was merely using a rhetorical expression. He is usually so careful. Nobody is going to do anything of the kind. Local authorities are to be allowed to use their judgment instead of the Minister's judgment. I will not do as my predecessors did—no doubt they thought they were doing right—and say that in no place at any time or in any conditions is it right. I am going to say, "It is for you to decide. I will give you the opportunity for making that decision."
Curiously enough, if I may say so in the presence of the great intellectuals, I believe in democracy and in local government. I know that the intellectuals on the other side have a great distrust of local government. The hon. Member for Widnes showed all through his speech that he had the greatest fear that everybody was going to do the most dreadful things unless we stopped them. I do not believe that.

Mr. MacColl: Surely the whole basis of British democracy has always been to recognise that the system generally behaves admirably, but to recognise also that a certain amount of original sin is liable to creep in and that it is desirable to have financial safeguards.

Mr. Macmillan: I know; we tend to think that it works admirably when they

elect us and that it exhibits original sin when they elect our opponents.
I am not going to compel anybody to do anything, and I can reassure the hon. Member for Clapham. I am not going to compel the local authorities to sell any house below the full, profiteering, market price. What I am going to do is to say, "You shall decide, as time passes and things are developing, whether the conditions have arrived in your locality which my predecessors thought had not arrived anywhere." I pass it to them.
In doing so, I must make certain changes. The object of the words in Clause 3, which we have already passed, is to give the Minister the power to give his consent generally.

Mr. Gibson: It is important that we should be clear on what is being done. In the Standing Committee the Minister himself said:
… but the whole purpose of subsection (1) is to remove the obligation to sell at market values …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1952; c. 284.]

Mr. Macmillan: I am coming to that. There is a difference between compelling a man to do a thing and allowing him to do something. He is not compelled to sell at a knockout price, but the obligation to sell at the maximum scarcity price is taken off his shoulders. The hon. Gentleman must admit that it is a perfectly logical difference, and to say that I am compelling him to sell at an artificially low price is not a fair statement. However, this is already done, because the House has passed Clause 3 and we are now considering the modus operandi. We have agreed that the consent of the Minister must be given generally either to all local authorities or to any local authority—
subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks expedient as to the price or rent to be obtained "—
that is, in the case of the sale of a long leasehold. We have agreed to that. Now, if I may come to the Amendments, I will say a word in courtesy about the Amendment which was not moved but on which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes made a speech.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to say, in protection of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), that it was at my suggestion he introduced the question of his


own Amendment, because I thought the two matters were so cognate that they could be discussed together.

Mr. Macmillan: I now pass to the Amendment moved formally and to the one close to it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Minister has just read material words, namely, that he has a discretion to make conditions in relation to "price or rent." It is true that the words "or otherwise" follow, but they add nothing whatever to what has gone before. Will the Minister say whether the Clause enables him to do anything more than to impose conditions relating only to price and rent?

Mr. Macmillan: It allows me to make conditions, but the object is to relieve an obligation which would prevent the sale of council houses because at present there is the obligation to obtain the maximum scarcity value.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is not the point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a cross-examination. Mr. Macmillan.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the practice of the House to ask the Minister, for the purpose of elucidation, for an explanation of the construction he puts upon a Clause which is under discussion?

Mr. Speaker: As long as the matter is kept within due bounds, but we must proceed. This is the Report stage of the Bill, not the Committee stage.

Mr. Macmillan: I think we have carried this on agreeably, and I am sure we shall go on doing so. Perhaps I may now develop what I want to say in answer to these points, and if there are further points I shall try to answer them. We have passed this Clause and we have now come to the proviso. There is a great difference between what is in the Clause and what is in the proviso. The proviso says that any of the instructions, the regulations, which are to be sent from the Minister to the local authorities giving them the broad outline of what they are to do, what is the minimum price they must obtain, how they are to calculate it, to what kind of people they are to

sell—whether to the sitting tenants or not—all that should be put into an Order and that that Order should be not, as curiously enough was said by the mover of it, subject to being prayed against, but subject to the affirmative procedure; not to the negative procedure but to the more onerous or, as I would call it, the most important of all systems.
9.0 p.m.
The hon. Member referred to Prayers, but this would not even be one of those Orders which could be prayed against. It would be an Order which would not come into effect until it had an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The general scheme which I was going to lay down in the circular would be done after the Order had been approved by both Houses.
I quite see that considerable arguments can be directed in favour of what is proposed, but I also think that there are considerable arguments against it. In this matter of the administration of what Parliament has already granted—the House has passed the Clause—to be within the full discretion of the Minister, there is a good deal to be said for the flexibility that can come from these circulars, which are capable, first, of being considered with those who have to operate them, which is quite a valuable practice, and second, of being altered from time to time and not being made too rigid.
The Parliamentary procedure of both Houses is a pretty heavy burden to impose, in addition to all the other work of Parliament, and tends to make an Order of this kind, once passed, more difficult to amend or to change as experience may show to be desirable. Therefore, as a matter purely of administration, it would be better to leave it to be operated, just as important matters are operated, as between the Minister and the local authorities.
Take, for instance, the question of the decision as to what should be the maximum proportion of private licences, whether the ratio is 1 to 5 or 1 to 1. There was no question that that huge issue was to be done by Order. It never has been done by Order. It is subject to Parliamentary debate and to the censure of the Minister, to be raised on a Supply Day or in any other method. If the House forms a view contrary to


that of the Minister, the Minister would fall, and perhaps the Government also, just as they would on the Parliamentary affirmative Resolution. Considering that we have always had this practice, subject to Parliamentary control in the way I have described, I should think that I could ask the House in this matter to follow it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the Minister consider that we would all have been in a much better position to judge the merits of his argument if we had all been in the same position as that in which two or three of us are: namely, to be placed in possession, as they have been, of the intentions of the Minister with regard to the advice which he contemplates giving to the local authorities?

Mr. Macmillan: I am coming to that. I am dealing with the point of procedure, and if I have made any breach of courtesy I hope I shall be acquitted.
I thought it would be useful if, apart from the broad statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of the debates as to the general line of our intentions—how we would try to fix the minimum prices that would have to be paid, and so on—that when I was in course of negotiating the precise form of it, I would do what, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough rightly said, is not an uncommon practice between Ministers and ex-Ministers and give him the detailed draft after I had got it to that point of agreement.
Unless a procedure of this kind was definitely decided upon, the House would not expect a draft normally to be put into the Library or to be made public before it had even been sent out. It is, of course, a common procedure, as a matter of good friendship between people who have held similar positions, to consult each other or to show the broad texts of a thing still in draft. That I have done, and that, I think, is well known to most of the organisations of the local authorities with whom we have been discussing the details for some time. With regard to the particular picture—

Mr. Silverman: Nobody objects for a moment to the continuance of what, as the right hon. Gentleman said, has always been the practice, and a very useful practice, between Ministers and ex-Ministers such as he has described. But he does

not say, does he, that it has been a usual practice to do it at such a time and under the circumstances in which it was done here? If the Act were already in being and the right hon. Gentleman were proceeding in the way he wants to proceed under the Act, then no doubt it would be a matter of courtesy, but here it is being used to influence the question, not of what the right policy is, but whether or not this Amendment can be passed.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member is a little too suspicious and takes a low view of human nature—

Mr. Silverman: Not at all.

Mr. Macmillan: This draft was done before the Amendment was on the paper and before I had reason to suppose that the matter of proceeding would be challenged. I thought there would be a debate and therefore sent this along before we had even seen the Amendment. But, to suggest that it was to stop the debate—

Mr. Silverman: I did not.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member makes these suggestions and when one answers back he immediately withdraws them. He must not mind if occasionally —although it is contrary to my interest —I do oppose him. He is a good friend in the general line of politics in dividing his party, but in this matter I must support my hon. Friends.
The question is, shall we proceed by an Order which requires the affirmative system, or by an Order—it has not been here suggested but might be suggested—of the Prayer system, or shall we proceed by the method of allowing the powers which the House has already given under Clause 3 to the Minister to be operated by the well known practice of circulars to local authorities, leaving it to the House on Supply Day, on a Vote of Censure or any other recognised Parliamentary procedure, to call attention to what they may feel to be its weaknesses or faults, using the weapon according to the gravamen of the charge against the Minister? I do not think there is a great deal in it in practice, because I think that any of the methods of calling attention to the matter can be equally well applied, but, as a matter of administration and considering the time of the House, I hope that the hon. Member will be ready not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Pannell: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I remind him that his Parliamentary Secretary, under some difficulty, did attempt to tell the Committee upstairs the broad general line that the circular would take. Some of us pressed him to let us see it before Committee, but he indicated that he expected that we would be in a position to deploy our arguments in the light of our knowledge of the circular. We have not that knowledge and, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we rather resent it.

Mr. Macmillan: I feel very sorry—because the hon. Member for Leeds, West was such an agreeable colleague on the Committee—if this has worked out in that way, but this is a rather procedural Amendment. Had this been a discussion on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill it would have been relevant to the circular, but the question is simply on which of the three methods we should proceed and which the House desires.
I now pass to the point so well put by the hon. Member for Widnes. As he rightly said, we had a rather complicated debate upstairs on all these matters, and I do not apologise for trying to say again what I tried to say then. The hon. Member has served a useful purpose in raising the matter again. If we had, as according to his Amendment, to say that no general consent should be given until the Minister approved a scheme with three separate provisos, we would introduce yet another complication. The scheme, he says, must state the type of house to be sold. I think that is really a matter more for the local authority than for anybody else if this is to work at all.
There is the question of the methods of allocation to the purchaser. While I can, and shall give, as my predecessors gave, general instructions, it is very important that the Minister should not interfere with any particular choice of tenants or the characters of tenants. That must be left to the local authority within the broad order given—

Mr. MacColl: Does that mean the Minister is going to stick to the formula about comparable need? It will be within the recollection of the House that there was a considerable argument about the implications of that between my

right hon. Friends the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the Minister not long ago. If the Privy Council disagree it is obviously not for me to argue, but it is a phrase which will create confusion if the right hon. Gentleman uses it.

Mr. Macmillan: If I might protect myself and fellow Privy Councillors, I would put it this way: We would try to have some kind of general system as is applied to licences generally. That is to say if there is a change, if we ever reach the point where no licensing system is necessary at all in the housing sphere, it will be ridiculous to have a need or other qualification in the sphere of sales. The two must be kept in balance.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does that mean that the Minister is not going to prescribe as a condition that these houses could be sold to tenants?

Mr. Macmillan: There is some misunderstanding on the question of tenants. We should ask that existing houses should be sold to tenants. In the case of new houses coming into being conditions would be similar to those applying to private licences at the present time.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Under what provision has the Minister power to make such a condition?

Mr. Macmillan: First under "or other-j wise"; secondly under my general power.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Minister has no such power under the Bill.

Mr. Macmillan: I come finally to the point of the disposal of the proceeds. The hon. Member for Widnes is quite right in his anxiety to see that local authorities do not muddle away the money or get away with it or put it to the wrong account. The revenue account is a technical way of putting it; some should go to the funding part of that account.
I will assure the hon. Member of one thing: one thing I have learned, if nothing else, in the few months I have occupied my position is how careful is the watch and scrutiny by the officers of the accounting and finance side of my Department. I do not think there will be any difficulty in drawing up appropriate schemes for the disposal of this


money which will perfectly safeguard the interests of the ratepayers, the general probity and dignity of local government finance and the propriety of our national arrangements. Indeed, one might think sometimes that that aspect of administration is a little too tight, not that it is too loose or inefficiently administered.
I hope that the House will now come to this quite narrow point—by which of these three possible procedures, assuming that this thing is to be done at all, which it has been agreed shall be done, the plans are to be made—and that the House will reach a decision.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the controversial issue which arises out of the circular? I understand that it has been issued to certain authorities and certain people. According to the statement which the Minister made in the Committee stage, he was not legally correct in issuing the circular at all to anyone until Parliament had passed the Act. This Measure is not yet an Act and I think, if it is the case that certain Members of this House have been furnished with the circular, that we

are entitled to have the same information if there is anything in it that can affect the administration of this Measure when it becomes an Act.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Macmillan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he need have no fear. It is not an uncommon practice for a draft circular—and this is our draft, or the draft of a proposed circular which is the correct way of putting it—to be discussed with the leading authorities, on the understanding, of course, that the circular can be issued only when the Royal Assent has been given to the Bill.

Mr. Heath: Mr. Heath rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There can be no point of order until the Question is put.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 215.

Division No. 194.]
AYES
[9.18 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cole, Norman
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Alport, C. J. M.
Colegate, W. A.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harden, J. R. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Reader (Helton)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hay, John


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heath, Edward


Baxter, A B.
Cuthbert, W. N
Henderson, John (Cathead)


Beach, Maj Hicks
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wylhenshawe)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
De la Bere, Sir Rupert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hollis, M. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dormer, P. W.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Birch, Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Holt, A. F.


Bishop, F. P,
Drewe, G.
Hope, Lord John


Black, C. W
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T, (Richmond)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bossom, A C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A L.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bowen, E R.
Duthie, W. S.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fell, A.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Braine, B. R
Finlay, Graeme
Kurd, A. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W H.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hutchison, Lt -Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreoambe&amp; Lonsdale)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Gage, C. H
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, Cdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Jennings, R.


Bullard, D. G.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gammans, L. D.
Johnson-Hicks, 'Hon. L. W


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Kaberry, D.


Burden, F. F. A.
Godber, J. B.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Butcher, H W
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Gary, Sir Robert
Gough, C. F. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Clarke, Col Ralph (East Grinstead)
Gower, H. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Law, Rt. Hon. K.




Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Snadden, W. MoN


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Soames, Capt. C


Linstead, H. N.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Spence, H R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Stevens, G. P.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E)


Low, A. R. W.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Partridge, E.
Storey, S.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich. S)


McAdden, S. J.
Perkins, W. R. D
Summers, G. S.


MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Sutoliffe, H.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Piokthorn, K. W. M.
Teeling, W.


McKibbin, A. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Maclay, Hon. John
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thomton-Kemsley, Col C. N.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Profumo, J. D.
Tilney, John


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Raikes, H. V.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Redmayne, M.
Turton, R. H.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ronton, D. L. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K.


Markham, Major S. F.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wade, D. W.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robertson, Sir David
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marples, A. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker-Smith, D C.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Robson-Brown, W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maude, Angus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L C
Russell, R. S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ryder, Capt R. E. D.
Wellwood. W.


Mellor, Sir John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Molson, A H. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Sir (Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Shepherd, William
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mott'Radclyffe, C. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wills, G.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)



Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, W. W


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Daines, P.
Hannan, W.


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hargreaves, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hastings, S.


Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Balfour, O.
Deer, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Delargy, H. J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bartley, P.
Dodds, N. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Beattie, J.
Donnelly, D. L.
Holman, P


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Houghton, Douglas


Bence, C. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hoy, J. H


Bern, Wedgwood
Edelman, M.
Hubbard, T. F.


Benson, G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Beswick, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Van)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bing, G. M. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Blyton, W. R.
Ewart, R
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fienburgh, W.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Bowles, F G.
Follick, M.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Braddock, Mrs Elizabeth
Foot, M. M.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Brookway, A. F.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Keenan, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Kenyon, C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Burke, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
King, Dr. H M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Gibson, C. W,
Kinley, J.


Carmichael, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lewis, Arthur


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lindgren, G. S


Clime, J.
Grey, C. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Cooks, F. S.
Griffiths, At. Hon. James (Llanetly)
Logan, D. G.


Coldriclt, W.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacColl, J. E.


Collick, P. H
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McGhee, H. G.







Molnnes, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


McKay, John (Waltsend)
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


McLeavy, F.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rankin, John
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Mainwaring, W. H
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Timmons, J.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rhodes, H.
Tomney, F.


Manuel, A. C.
Richards, R.
Turner-Samuels, M


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Usborne, H. C.


Mitchison, G. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Monslow, W.
Ross, William
Wallace, H. W.


Moody, A. S.
Royle, C.
Weitzman, D.


Morgan, Dr. H. a W.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Morley, R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Short, E. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mort, D. L.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilkins, W. A.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Simmons, C. J (Brierley Hill)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Oldfield, W. H.
Slater, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oswald, T.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)
Williams, Rt. Hon Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Padley, W. E.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, W. R. (Dreylsden)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)


Pannell, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Sparks, J. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Parker, J
Steele, T.
Yates, V. F.


Paton, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon K


Peart, T. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.



Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stross, Dr. Barnett
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Popplewell. E.
Swingler, S. T.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.


Porter, G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 242.

Division No. 195.]
AYES
[9.27 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Herbison, Miss M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hobson, C. R


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holman, P.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Deer, G.
Houghton, Douglas


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Delargy, H. J.
Hoy, J. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dodds, N. N.
Hubbard, T F


Bacon, Miss Alice
Donnelly, D. L.
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)


Balfour, A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bartley, P.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Beattie, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Irvine, A. J (Edge Hill)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, W J. (Wood Green)


Bence, C. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Benn, Wedgwood
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Benson, G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Beswick, F.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Ewart, R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bing, G. H. C.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blackburn, F.
Fienburgh, W.
Keenan, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Follick, M.
Kenyon, C.


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
King, Dr H. M


Bottomley, Rt. Won. A. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lewis, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Brawn, Thomas (Ince)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Logan, D. G.


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacColl, J. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGhee, H G


Carmichael, J.
Grey, C. F.
McInnes, J


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Champion, A. J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Clunie, J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Coldrick, W.
Hannan, W.
Manuel, A. C.


Collick, P. H.
Hargreaves, A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hastings, S.
Mitchison, G. R.


Dames, P.
Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moody, A. S




Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Morley, R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Timmons, J.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ross, William
Tomney, F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, C.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mort, D. L.
Schofield S. (Barnsley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lymn


Moyle, A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Usborne, H. C.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shawoross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Viant, S. P.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Short, E. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Oldfield, W. H.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Weitzman, D.


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Well, Percy (Faversham)


Oswald, T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Padley, W. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deame Valley)
Slater, J.
White, Mrs. Eirens (E. Flint)


Pannell, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Parker, J.
Snow, J. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Paton, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Peart, T. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Popplewell, E.
Steele, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y.


Porter, G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Proctor, W. T.
Swingler, S. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Won. A.


Rankin, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Yates, V. F.


Raid, Thomas (Swindon)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)



Richards, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robens, Rt. Hon. A
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Alport, C. J. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Hurd, A. R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, LI.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Dormer, P. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Banks, Col. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, R.


Barlow, Sir John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baxter, A. B.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Duthie, W. S.
Kaberry, D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fell, A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.I
Finlay, Graeme
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Birch, Nigel
Gage, C. H.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Linstead, H. N.


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E)


Bossom, A. C.
Gammans, L. D.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C


Bowen, E. R.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Godber, J. B.
Low, A. R. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)


Braine, B. R.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bullard, D. G.
Harden, J. R. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclay, Hon. John


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, AirCdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Heath, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E


Cole, Norman
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Markham, Major S. F.


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, A. E.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthome)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Maydon, Li.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crouch, R. F.
Holt, A. F.
Mellor, Sir John


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hope, Lord John
Molson, A. H. E.







Monckton, Rt. Hon Sir Walter
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Teeling, W.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Robertson, Sir David
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Mott-Radclyffe. C. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robson-Brown, W
Thorneyeroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Nicholls, Harmar
Roper, Sir Harold
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tilney, John


Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Russell, R. S.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Turton, R. H.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Vane, W. M. F.


Oakshott, H. D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Shepherd, William
Wade, D. W.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Partridge, E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Perkins, W. R. O.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Peto, Brig. C, H. M.
Snadden, W. McN.
Watkinson, H. A.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Soames, Capt. C.
Wellwood, W.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Pilkington, Capt. R A.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Pitman, I. J.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wills, G.


Profumo, J. D.
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Raikes, H. V.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Studholme, H. G.



Redmayne, M.
Summers, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Remnant, Hon. P.
Sutoliffe, H.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Vosper.


Renton, D. L. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment of the hon. Member for widnes (Mr. MacColl) has already been discussed, but I invite him to move it formally if he so desires.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 23, at end, insert:
Provided that no general consent shall be given to any local authority or authorities until the Minister shall have approved a scheme prescribing—

(a) the type of house to be sold.

(b) the method of allocating to purchasers,and

(c) the disposal of the proceeds of the sales

—[Mr.MacColl.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 217;Noes, 243.

Division No. 196.]
AYES
[9.36 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Chetwynd, G. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Albu, A. H.
Clunie, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Ailen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cooks, F. S.
Gibson, C. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Coldrick, W.
Gooch, E G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Colliok, P. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Roesendale)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Corbet, Mrs. Freds
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, C. F.


Balfour, A.
Daines, P.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bartley, P.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Beattie, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hamilton, W. W.


Bence, C. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hannan, W.


Bonn, Wedgwood
Deer, G.
Hargreaves, A.


Benson, G.
Delargy, H. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Beswick, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Valet
Donnelly, D. L.
Hayman, F. H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Blackburn, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edelman, M.
Herbison, Miss M.


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hobson, C. R.


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Houghton. Douglas


Bowles, F. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hoy, J. H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hubbard, T. F.


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fienburgh, W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burke, W. A.
Follick, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Carmichael, J.
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)




Johnson, James (Rugby)
Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pannell, Charles
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Keenan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Swingler, S. T.


Kenyon, C.
Parker, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paton, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


King, Dr. H. M.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Kinley, J.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Porter, G.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lewis, Arthur
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Timmons, J.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Tomney, F.


Upton, Lt.-Col. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Logan, D. G.
Rankin, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Usborne, H. C.


McGhee, H. G.
Rhodes, H.
Viant, S. P.


McInnes, J.
Richards, R.
Wallace, H. W.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Weitzman, D.


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ross, William
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Royle, C.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Manuel, A. C.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, E. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (AbertiHery)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morley, B
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'y)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Slater, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Moyle, A.
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sorensen, R. W.
Yates, V. F.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.



Oswald, T.
Steelc, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Colegate, W. A.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthome)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crouch, R. F.
Hay, John


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Heath, Edward


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Norihwood)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Banks, Col. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, A. B.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Beach, Maj. Hicks
De la Bare, Sir Rupert
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Hollis, M. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holt, A. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Donner, P. W.
Hope, Lord John


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Drewe, G.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Birch, Nigel
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Black, C. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, A. R.


Bowen, E. R.
Fell, A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Braine, B. R.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jennings, R.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gage, C. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Poliok)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Kaberry, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gammans, L. D.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Billiard, D. G.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Godbar, J. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gough, C F. H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, H. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legh, P. R. (Petersfieid)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Linstead, H. N.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Cols, Norman
Harden, J. R. E.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)







Low, A. R. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stevens, G. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Partridge, E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


McAdden, S. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Storey, S.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Pelo, Brig. C. H. M.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Summers, G. S.


McKibbin, A. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Suteliffe, H.


MeKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maclay, Hon. John
Pitman, I. J.
Teeling, W.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Profumo, J. D.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Raikes, H. V.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Homcastle)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Tilney, John


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Redmayne, M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Turner, H. E. L.


Markham, Major S. F.
Renton, D. L. M.
Turton, R. H.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Marples, A. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vosper, D. F.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Robson-Brown, W.
Wade, D. W.


Maude, Angus.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Meltor, Sir John
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Molson, A. H. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Scott, R. Donald
Watkinson, H. A.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wellwood, W.


Mott-Radolyffe, C. E.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wills, G.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. p.
Snadden, W. MoN.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Soames, Capt. C.



Oakshott, H. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Major Conant and Mr. Studholme.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out "four." and to insert "five."
We had a long and comprehensive discussion in Committee on this point and my right hon. Friend agreed to reconsider the matter before the Report stage. The Bill originally provided that the local authority should have the right of preemption for a period not exceeding four years on any house sold. During the Committee stage arguments were adduced in favour of a period of five, six, seven and even 10 years. After great thought, my right hon. Friend feels that the period during which local authorities shall have the right to buy back the house should be five years.
This is what my right hon. Friend calls the "motor car" Clause. It has one object only, and that is to make sure that the house is sold to a genuine purchaser; in other words, that no person shall be allowed to buy a house purely for speculative purposes. The question then arises: What period is required to prevent speculation? One has to balance two factors very carefully. One factor is what is fair to the local authority in

preventing profiteering and the second is what is fair to the purchaser of the house. It is a matter of opinion and it is very difficult to decide, but my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that if a person buying a house is content to remain in it for five years it is clear that he has no intention of profiteering but desires to remain in the house owning it.
The period of four years was originally inserted because it followed precedent. The Socialists' 1945 Act, in regard to the granting of private licences, stipulated a period of four years before a person could sell the house which he had built. After consideration of the lengthy arguments in Committee my right hon. Friend came to the right view that the period should be slightly increased to five years. This is purely the narrow point about the period which it is necessary to insert in the Bill so that we can be absolutely certain that the person buying a property does so for the genuine purpose of owning it and not for what we conceive to be the wrong purpose of selling it for speculation.

Mr. Ewart: We very much appreciate the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary in moving this Amendment. He


indicated that the arguments adduced in Committee by the Opposition have had some effect in encouraging the Minister to extend the period to five years. Perhaps the Minister will agree to a later Amendment in my name and the names of hon. Friends of mine which seeks to extend the pre-emption period to seven years. If I reiterated the arguments which have been put forward in favour of the five year period I should be making my case for seven years on good grounds.
In the debate on the last Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not prepared to reveal the conditions with regard to price under which he would advise local authorities to sell council houses, but he rather indicated that such houses, particularly those built before May, 1945, would be sold at an attractive price.
The Clause says that there shall be an attractive offer to sitting council tenants and to those who qualify for a licence to build, so that they may purchase their houses through the local authority. The purchasers would be buying at an attractive price in order to become the owner-occupiers of their own houses. That should be a sufficient inducement to the Minister to extend the proposed period from four years to seven, which would break down the argument about the position being sufficiently attractive to investors who wanted a turnover in a fairly reasonable time at a high profit. The housing programme will not be completed in seven years, or in 10 years, in my opinion. I am merely taking an indication from the report of my own local authority.
People who might be influenced to use the device of purchasing council houses now, in order to turn over a good profit in a reasonable time, would be put off if the period were extended to seven years, while the inducement to people who want to own and occupy council houses would be safeguarded. There is little doubt that intending purchasers would be prepared to enter into a covenant for seven years' occupation before pre-emption and resale to the local authority. I am speaking to the Minister's Amendment, but I hope that the point of the Amendment in my name and the names of my hon. Friends will be conceded.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: Like my hon. Friends, I heard with partial satisfaction the small concession which the Minister has decided to make to us on this matter. He and his Parliamentary Secretary are fully aware, from the protracted discussion in Committee, that on this side we take the most rooted objection to the whole idea underlying the Clause. If the Minister is sincere, and desires to do a practical job in putting forward a safeguard to eliminate speculation and keep the grasping hands of unruly people off council houses, I should have been satisfied if he had stopped the Clause at subsection (3, a) and had not added paragraph (b) which follows it. The intention and the practical purpose of the pre-emption period is to a large extent destroyed by that paragraph.
It may have escaped the attention of hon. Members, despite our long discussion upstairs, that whatever the period of pre-emption might be under the Clause for which a purchaser is precluded from reselling the house which he has bought admittedly at a knock-down price, the position is sufficiently safeguarded; but that the very next paragraph, (b), makes a qualification which destroys the intention of the first part of the Clause.
Let us suppose the type of local authority which would be disposed to begin to trade council houses, which we sincerely believe on this side to be a thoroughly reactionary, irresponsible and anti-social policy in any case. The type of authority which might enter into these transactions might be faced 12 months later with a request to repurchase the house because under paragraph (b)—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we have reached that yet, and perhaps there will be a later opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to develop the argument which is he attempting to develop at this stage.

Mr. Price: I will restrict my remarks in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I accept.
The intention of the Amendment is in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, to restrict the activities of speculators. That is a wholly estimable idea to put forward if the machinery provided is in proper form to prevent speculators entering into this business. It might only, however, be operative for the period of


five years if a house, after five years, can be sold at double the price under the special terms which local authorities have been asked to give for purchase.
We should prefer that the period were seven years instead of five for reasons which were fully ventilated in Committee upstairs. I should have thought that there was a type of authority who might very well refuse to repurchase a house in 12 months. If, in fact, a person who has bought a council house under those conditions were to go back to his local authority 12 months later and give them the option of buying it back for him and it was refused, then in one month this preventive Clause is inoperative and the man is free to sell the house at any price.

Mr. Powell: Not at any price. The hon. Member should read paragraph (a).

Mr. Price: I was not aware that back benchers answered questions which I was addressing to the Minister.

Mr. Powell: The easier ones.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member sat upstairs along with other Members of the House and I should have thought he was more closely familiar with the type of argument that has been used in the detailed examination of this matter. I do not think his intervention helps us very much at this stage.
In our opinion it would be far better, in view of the doubts existing in our minds and, indeed, which must have existed in the Minister's mind when he agreed to extend the period from four to five years, to give us the benefit of the longer period.

Mr. Wade: I welcome the proposal to increase the period from four to five years, but I doubt whether that is adequate, and I hope that the Minister will consider favourably extending it to seven years. May I very briefly give my reasons for expressing this view? Neither I nor my party are opposed to the main object of this Bill. It is a Bill which we support. My Liberal colleagues and I are wholeheartedly in favour of the private ownership of property, in particular the ownership of houses by owner-occupier.
I am aware that Members on both sides of the House have stated that they are in favour of the principle embodied in the Bill. For reasons which I need not go into now, I do not consider existing

legislation adequate, but I think that Members on all sides will agree that we do not wish this Bill to benefit unintentionally the speculator.
10.0 p.m.
In considering that problem it would be a mistake to think only of the hypothetical case of the purchaser of a house who may be tempted to sell to a speculator shortly after his purchase. There is also the case of the man who, having purchased and resided in the house for four or five years, is then tempted to sell. As a result of subsection (1) of this Clause, I think rightly, the local authorities are not under an obligation to sell at a price which will include the false scarcity value; they are permitted to sell at some price less than that. A good deal has been said about selling houses much below the true value, but I think there has been some misunderstanding on that point. It is the scarcity value that the Minister has in mind.
Having passed that Clause, we must consider the effect. The time may come, perhaps in five years, when the owner of the house may be tempted to sell at a profit and that profit will not necessarily be wholly the result of improvements which he has made to the house. It may be due in part to the fact that he has been able to buy the house on favourable terms.
I recognise that at present there is a fall in the value of property, particularly of the more expensive houses. If that process continues, and if the housing programme is developed as one would wish it to be, it may be that in five years there will not be much likelihood of the purchaser of a house under the terms of this Bill selling it at a substantial profit. My own view is that the period of five years is really not adequate, and for the reasons I have given I hope that the Minister, even at this late hour, will accept the period of seven years instead of five years.

Mr. de Freitas: My hon. Friends and I believe that seven is preferable to five. The reasons have been well stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) and others. The Minister could save a Division on this Amendment if he would accept seven instead of five. Otherwise, I fear we must divide the House, not because we prefer four to five but because only by dividing


on and defeating this Amendment will our own Amendment to substitute seven for four be in order.
For that reason, and in the confident knowledge that we have the Liberal Party with us, I ask the Minister to think again. If he does not give this concession of seven, we must divide the House.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful for the brevity with which the hon. Gentleman has wound up the debate from the Opposition benches.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) spoke in reasoned terms, but was solely concerned with preventing a person getting a profit on re-sale. To some extent one must look at it from the point of view of the person going into the house. If a man is to be prevented for five years from realising more money than he paid for the house, subject to one or two minor additions and improvements he makes, surely he thinks several times before buying it? No one buying a house for speculative purposes has in mind a period of five years. If a man speculates, he wants a quick turnover.
Another fact which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South naturally did not take into account was that of an elderly purchaser. I am not referring to young men like the hon. Member for Sunderland, South or the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I say this because I have taken the precaution of finding out the dates of their birth. In the case of those two hon. Gentlemen it would not matter if they kept it for 10 years, because they are so young. To someone a little older, who wished to enjoy the house in middle age or later, five years is not an unreasonable period.

Mr. Sparks: It is a very great temptation if a man knows that he can buy a council house for a certain figure and at the end of five years—the pre-emption period—he can sell it and make £1,000 profit on it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all very well, but on the basis of the Minister's suggested minimum price, that can be done. That is the danger.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member's intervention was based on the hypothesis that a man would automatically make £1,000 if he sold the house. Had the

hon. Member followed the property market recently, he would find that it was going down, and not up. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. The property market certainly has gone down.
Another point was raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. He said that the price is limited during the period of five years, whether the house is sold to the local authority or to a private person. Therefore, if during the five years the local authority said that they did not want to buy the house and the vendor sold it to someone else, he would be prevented by the Bill from making a profit and would have to sell at that figure, irrespective of who was the purchaser.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would the Minister explain exactly how he interprets the Clause, which governs the sort of conditions that he is now explaining? The hon. Gentleman maintains what his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said rather less courteously during an intervention in my speech, that the restricted price would apply during the whole of the preemption period of five years. This is what the Clause, with the proposed Amendment, would say:
On the sale of a house in accordance with the said paragraph (d), a local authority may in any case, and shall if so required by the Minister, impose conditions—
(a) limiting the price at which the house may be sold or the rent at which it may be let during any period not exceeding five years.…
The Clause says "may" as far as the local authority is concerned, and "shall" only if the Minister so decides. This is a permissive Clause. There is nothing in the Bill which makes it obligatory upon anyone.

Mr. Marples: I agree with some of the points which the hon. Member has mentioned during his rather long intervention, but not with all of them. I pray in aid the evidence of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who said that no Minister occupying the responsible position of my right hon. Friend would sanction anything which was a "racket." The Minister may—"shall," if he wants to—
impose conditions limiting the price at which the house may be sold or the rent at which it may be let during any period not exceeding four years "—


or "five years" if the Amendment is accepted—
from the completion of the sale.
Therefore, it does not matter who takes the house from the vendor, whether it is the local authority or a private person. The price to be charged will be limited if the Minister decides to limit it. There will not, therefore, be a question of profiteering in the sense that the hon. Member, when making his speech, inferred.
The hon. Member for Westhougaton said that he thought any council which was going to sell a house would be reactionary and thoroughly anti-social in policy. That conflicts to some extent with the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who said that his party were not against the sale of council houses in suitable circumstances and at suitable times. I think, therefore, that the bon. Member went a little far in describing in such a sweeping way the evils of the sale of council houses.

Mr. Price: We are not robots.

Mr. Marples: From what I have seen in the Press recently, that is a triumph of understatement.
I am fortified by the welcome given by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), who said that his colleagues supported him in welcoming die Bill, but I should have been more gratified had his colleagues been here to give weight to their enthusiasm. At any rate, I do not think the Liberals as a party opposed this principle.
It is a question of balancing. We have to balance on the one hand the evil of people trying to make a profit and, on the other hand, the period must not be too long to discourage a man from purchasing a house. If we really wanted to prevent speculation we might make the period 30 years. Then we would prevent speculation, but no one would ever buy the house.

Mr. Wade: Would the hon. Gentleman clear up this point? Does he take the view that a right of pre-emption would deter a tenant who wishes to be an owner-occupier from buying? Why would the period of pre-emption—the right of the local authority to buy back if and when the man wishes to sell—deter him from buying the house at all?

Mr. Marples: What would deter him would be the re-sale price of the house if it were limited in the period of time irrespective of to whom he sold, whether to the local authority or to a private individual. He could not get more money. He would only be interested as a vendor in what he received as a price and it does not matter who gives it to him so long as he gets the cash. What would deter him would be the Amendment, which says that for the period of five years he must not sell at a price greater than that laid down.
I hope that the House will accept this Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, who has gone some way to meet the objections put forward in the Committee stage. Originally, it was four years. That followed the precedent set by the Opposition when they passed their original Act in 1945 and restricted private enterprise licences by providing that no person getting a private enterprise licence should sell at a figure greater than the figure in the licence for a period of four years. Then my right hon. Friend realised that there were objections and that perhaps five years would be better.
A further point which we must take into consideration is that the rate of house-building must be considered because if house building increases in rate and we can build sufficient houses it would make five years too long. That reflection may assist hon. Members opposite not to go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry that the joint impetuosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and of the Parliamentary Secretary has prevented me from making these observations in time to elicit a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, or with very much hope of persuading him, but I still feel bound to make them.
I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary and every other hon. Member except my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) have spoken about this as if it were a fixed period. It is nothing of the sort. This is a maximum period during which the local authority, with the consent of the Minister, may impose these restrictions. I should very much appreciate the objection to a long fixed period—

Mr. Marples: From the point of view of accuracy, I am quite certain that it will be within the recollection of the House, and the hon. and learned Member will find it when he reads HANSARD, that when I introduced the Amendment I said "for a period not exceeding."

Mr. Mitchison: I accept that and have not the least doubt that that is what the hon. Gentleman said when introducing the Amendment, but, when he was replying to the debate just now, he was speaking as though this were a fixed period. I absolutely fail to see the disadvantage to a local authority of putting on this very small restriction, because it is a very small restriction, for a period of seven years. After all, a period of seven years is very common in this kind of transaction. It is almost the standard period of short leases; it has a kind of history in all matters connected with houses.
If I might put the point on even more simple grounds to the Parliamentary Secretary, I would say that I observe that in the course of our debates that four, five, six, eight and 10 years have been suggested as the right period. While one accepts with some gratitude any extension of a period which is obviously too short, five instead of four is a bit stingy; if the Parliamentary Secretary had made it half and half the figure would have been seven.
10.15 p.m.
What is the real object to doing it now? No question of principle is involved in this, it is ordinary, common sense. Why not leave it, as the Tory Party so often says it does to the local authority to fix a sensible period? The Minister has power to give or refuse consent. Why tie the hands of the local authorities to five years? Why not let

them go up to seven years if they wish to do so?

This is a restriction which makes very little difference to the purchaser of the house, but it has a real and considerable effect in preventing speculation. The Parliamentary Secretary should remember that we are dealing with municipal property which has been sold, not necessarily at market prices. The object of removing the restriction that the best price possible should be obtained is to enable the municipalities to sell bargain lots of public property, which are obviously a temptation to anyone who has obtained them to re-sell them at a profit, and to anyone who is in the market to buy them a little more cheaply than he would get them in the ordinary course of things.

Surely, to prevent that kind of speculation, which we all want to prevent, there is no reason whatever to limit the period to what it would be with the very short increase which the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have offered. Let the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary think again and take note of this suggestion, either here or in some other place. They cannot have given any deep or profound thought to the point. All they did was to make the smallest concession possible because one of their own friends had suggested six, eight or other years. Surely we might have a little more than that; and, in the generous spirit that comes over everybody at 10.18 p.m. on this particular day of the year, the Parliamentary Secretary will accept seven instead of five.

Question, "That 'four' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That 'five' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 204.

Division No. 197.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Birch, Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert


Alport, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Black, C. W.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, A. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cole, Norman


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Colegate, W. A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bueks, Wycombe)
Braine, B. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Baldwin, A. E.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cooper-Key, E. M


Banks, Col. C.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baxter, A. B,
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hen. P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullard, D. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyra, Col. O. E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crouch, R. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Butcher, H. W.
Cuthbert, W. N.




Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


De la Bere, Sir Rupert
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robertson, Sir David


Deedes, W. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Donner, P. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Russell, R. S.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Riohmond)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Low, A. R. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Scott, R. Donald


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
MoKibbin, A. J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
MoKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maolay, Hon. John
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Gage, C. H.
Maoleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Soames, Capt. C.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Speir, R. M.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mannlngham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Gough, C. F. H.
Markham, Major S. F.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.
Storey, S.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Studholme, H. G.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maude, Angus
Summers, G. S.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sutoliffe, H.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlieott, Brig. F.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mellor, Sir John
Teeling, W.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hay, John
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar
Touohe, Sir Gordon


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turner, H. E. L.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hope, Lord John
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vosper, D. F.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Partridge, E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)




Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wellwood, W.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Illord, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pickthom, K. W. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kaberry, D.
Profumo, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Raikes, H. V.



Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Renton, D. L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Brockway, A. F.
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donnelly, D. L.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Burke, W. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Atliee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Balfour, A.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bence, C. R.
Clunie, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Benn, Wedgwood
Cocks, F. S
Ewart, R.


Benson, G.
Colliok, P. H.
Fernyhough, E.


Beswick, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fienburgh, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cove, W. G.
Follick, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, M. M.


Blackburn, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Forman, J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bowen, E. R.
Deer, G.
Gibson, C. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Delargy, H. J.
Gooch, E. G.







Greenwood, Anthony (Rossertdale)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Snow, J. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian
Sorensen, R. W.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hall, Rt. Hon. Clenvil (Calne Valley)
Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Stewart, Miohael (Fulham, E.)


Hannan, W.
Morley, R.
Straehey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hargreaves, A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stress, Dr. Bamett


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Swingler, S. T.


Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Holt, A. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Timmons, J.


Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles
Tomney, F.


Hoy, J. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hubbard, T. F.
Parker, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.
Usbome, H. C.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.
Wade, D. W.


Hughes, Heotor (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearl, T. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Weitzman, D.


Irving, W. J. (Wood GrBen)
Porter, G.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rankin, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Keenan, W.
Rhodes, H.
Wigg, George


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Richards, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


King, Dr. H. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Carnarvonshire)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lewis, Arthur
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Logan, D. G.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Winterbottom. Ian (Nottingham, C.)


MacColl, J. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McGhee, H. G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Yates, V. F.


Melnnes, J.
Short, E. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shurmer, P. L. E.



MoLeavy, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after "purchaser," to insert:
(including any successor in title of his and any person deriving title under him or any such successor).
This Amendment arises as a result of discussions during the Committee stage. The matter was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He raised the point whether the condition described in subsection (3, b), as amended in Committee, would operate against a successor in title of the original purchaser or against a mortgagee from him.
My right hon. Friend has been advised that there is no doubt in law that a covenant in a conveyance in the precise form of paragraph (b) would so operate. All doubt that this is the type of covenant that local authorities are being empowered to obtain and that the Minister can require them to obtain will be removed by the express provision to this effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out from "has," to "and," in line 32, and to insert:
notified the authority of the proposed sale or letting and offered to resell or sell the house to them.
10.30 p.m.
Certain Members of the Opposition have taken the opportunity to put on the Order Paper Amendments to this Amendment. I hope that I shall be allowed to move the Amendment formally at this stage so that the argument may be developed.
This is just a further drafting Amendment put down after our discussion upstairs, and it is designed to obviate any possibility of the owner or mortgagee of a house sold by a local authority, having once offered to sell it to the local authority and having had that offer refused, selling or letting it at any time thereafter during the five-year period without making a fresh offer to sell it to the local authority.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add:
at a price to be fixed by the District Valuer.
This Amendment has some connection with a proposed Amendment of mine, in page 3, line 34, to leave out from "made," to the end of line 36, and with a further proposed Amendment of my hon. Friends in page 3, line 44, at the end, to insert a new subsection (5).
I do not propose to say very much on my Amendment because the main discussion on principle will come later, on the following Amendment. I should like, however, to draw the attention of the House to the words in subsection (3, b). This, of course, follows the conditions which the Minister may impose in regard to the re-purchase by the local authority of a house which was previously sold to the purchaser and the words are:
… prescribing or providing for the determination of the price to be paid in the event of the acceptance of such an offer;
We feel that it would be better if the price to be determined was a price to be fixed by the district valuer. It would overcome a lot of the difficulties that we have been discussing earlier on previous Amendments if the Minister would include in his conditions for the purchaser the determination by the district valuer of the price to be paid by the local authority in buying back the house.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I do so briefly because the major discussion will come later. I do so in the hope that the Government will accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I am afraid that hope will not be realised, but, at least, we do protect the position so far as the later stage of the discussion is concerned.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I think, perhaps, the broad principle would be better debated at a later stage, but so far as this Amendment to the proposed Amendment is concerned, it would bring in the district valuer when there is a question of the re-purchase of the house under the pre-emption provision. As the House has already decided that the district valuer is not to be used for the sale in the first

instance, there does not seem any particular reason why he should be brought into the question of the re-purchase in the pre-emption provision because if the sale is to be made in accordance with the instructions or guidance I may give to local authorities there does not seem to be much reason why in the re-purchase the same principles should not apply.
The district valuer should not be introduced at one stage of the transaction and not at another. The reason we oppose this principle is that the district valuer may be a suitable person for determining the market value including the scarcity element in it, but we have decided that we are not going to use him for the original sale. We are going to have a different method of valuation and there is no reason for introducing the district valuer in the pre-emption provision. I hope that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment will not be pressed. The problem of sales can be discussed on a later Amendment.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I would draw the attention of the Minister to the point that the house may be altered between the time it is disposed of by the local authority and re-purchased. Whatever may be the conditions of sale that will be an element which will be a matter for arbitration. It would appear that the district valuer might be the most suitable person to decide the value of that particular improvement, and what amount the purchaser might reasonably expect to add to the price of the house apart from the normal conditions arising during the period it has been in occupation. It might be difficult to find some machinery of arbitration to deal with this complicated matter, but I am sure the district valuer might be the appropriate person to enable it to be quickly and amicably settled between the two parties. Would the Minister look at the matter from that angle?

Mr. Macmillan: Certainly I will look at it. There will have to be adjustments downwards or upwards, for depreciation or improvement during the period of occupation, and it was contemplated that that would be a matter for agreement between the parties. If there could not be an agreement any dispute would be determined by the Minister. I will look at the point again to see if the Minister might think fit to use the services of the


district valuer to act as umpire, but we think that the narrow case of arguing about depreciation or improvement could rest with the ordinary administrative machinery.

Question put, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 224.

Division No. 198.]
AYES
[10.39 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paton, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crawe)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pearson, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pearl, T. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Porter, G.


Balfour, A.
Hannan, W.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bence, C. R.
Hastings, S.
Rankin, John


Benn, Wedgwood
Hayman, F. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Richards, R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Herbison, Miss M.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemswarlh)
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Royle, C.


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J. H.
Schofieid, S. (Barnsley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Burke, W. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hid)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Slater, J.


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Keenan, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cocks, F. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Collick, P. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Steele, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Donnelly, D. L.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Timmons, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Ede, Rl. Hon. J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Wallace, H. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
Weinman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Monslow, W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Moody, A. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Ewart, R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
Morley, R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Follick, M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, M. M.
Mort, O. L.
Witley, Octavius (Cleveland)


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oswald, T.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Gibson. C. W.
Padley, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Vales, V. F.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Pannell, Charles
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Pargiter, G. A.



Grey, G. F.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr.Popplewell and Mr. George Wigg.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Partridge, E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Harris, Ruder (Huston)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Hay, John
Pitman, I. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Heath, Edward
Powell, J. Enoch


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Banks, Col. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Profumo, J. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythonshawe)
Raikes, H. V.


Beaoh, Maj. Hioks
Hlnchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hint, Geoffrey
Redmayne, M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ronton, D. L. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, $.)
Hollis, M. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Holt, A. F.
Robertson, Sir David


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hope, Lord John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Robson-Brown, W.


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Roper, Sir Harold


Black, C. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bossont, A. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Bowen, E. R.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Scott, R. Donald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hyllon-Foster, H. B. H.
Shepherd, William


Broomam-White, R. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bullard, D. G.
Kaborry, D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Snadden, W. McN.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Soames, Capt. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Speir, R. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Stevens, G. P.


Cole, Norman
Lin stead, H. N.
Stcwart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colegate, W. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Storey, S.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas, Sir Jooelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Summers, G. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, W.


Crouch, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
MaoLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


De la Bare, Sir Rupert
Maopherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Tilney, John


Deedes, W. F.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Dodds-Parker, A. O.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Turner, H. F. L.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E McA.
Markham, Major S. F.
Turton, R. H.


Donner, P. W.
Marlowa, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Vosper, D. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Wade, D. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Maude, Angus
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fell, A.
Medlioott, Brig. F.
Ward, Hon. George (Woreester)


Finlay, Graeme
Mellor, Sir John
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fisher, Nigel
Molson, A. H. E.
Waterhouse, Capl. Rt. Hon. C.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Watkinson, H. A.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreoambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wellwood, W.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Galbralth, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gammans, L. D.
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Nicholson, Godfrey (Famham)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Godber, J. B.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wills, G.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gough, C. F. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Gower, H. R.
Nugent, G. R. H.



Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Harden, J. R. E.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)



Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."
So far as local authorities are concerned, I agree that for the larger authorities, such as the county boroughs and perhaps some of the larger municipal authorities, where there is a tendency to give the officials a greater degree of authority and power than is the case with the smaller authorities, one month may be sufficient.
But normal local government procedure is for the council to meet monthly, when the reports of committees are received. To permit the right of refusal within one month would not allow the normal procedure of the council to operate. We ask for this longer period so that the smaller bodies shall have opportunity for discussion and decision.

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to second the Amendment.
It may be argued that three months is a long time. Of course in a democracy three months is not really a long period. Even in the case of the central Government one finds that one month is frequently a short time in which to get decisions from Ministers. So I see no reason why we should expect local authorities to work more quickly. I am not arguing that they should be encouraged to work slowly or to hold up decisions. In the majority of cases local authorities will be concerned to give a decision as quickly as possible. However in the vacation period it is customary for no committee meetings to be held by the majority of local authorities during the month of August.
Two months would be a reasonable compromise, if the Minister would accept that, but one month is too short. It must be borne in mind that this is a maximum period and, if it were increased to a more reasonable figure, it would be generally acceptable to local authorities and it would cause no great hardship or inconvenience to the person concerned.
The selling of a house requires a fair amount of consideration and therefore no undue harm would be caused by saying that local authorities in circumstances such as these should have two months at least. We ask for three, but, speaking for myself, I should be happy to see two months inserted.

Mr. Sparks: I am surprised that the Minister did not give favourable consideration to the discussion that we had in Standing Committee upon this point. If he wants to make it as difficult as possible for a local authority to repurchase a house within the pre-emption period, this is the way to do it. Before a house can be re-purchased by the local authority, the council has to give a decision. The officials of that local authority have no power to buy back property on their own initiative.
Most local authorities do not meet more frequently than once a month and, during the vacation period, they do not meet at all between July and September. Therefore, in a case like this the Minister must be reasonable. He knows quite well from the way we argued upstairs that in many cases it will be impossible for a local authority to give a specific undertaking within a month that they wish to re-purchase the property.
Supposing, for instance, an individual says to a local authority on 1st August, "I want to sell my house and I want to know your decision by 1st September." I doubt whether any local authorities meet in August. Therefore, the official will not be able to say, "Yes, the local authority will buy it back" because he will not have the authority. If he takes a chance on his own responsibility, the local authority may decide otherwise when it meets in September. Therefore it is impracticable for a local authority to give a decision within one month that they will re-purchase a house of this kind.
The Minister ought to give further consideration to this matter. If he thinks three months is too long, he ought to be prepared to compromise because one month is too short a period.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I should not have intervened if it had not been for the arrant nonsense to which I have just listened from the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). Most local authorities have one of two arrangements. One is that the officials are given a broad directive within which they shall do this kind of thing. The other is that most of the larger local authorities have a system whereby they delegate responsibility to the chairmen of main committees during the recess periods, and the local authority committees are then required—it is mostly


done without any difficulty—to confirm what the chairmen of the committees have done. Those are the normal, ordinary and accepted arrangements, and the problems over which the hon. Member has been tripping simply do not arise.

Mr. Pannell: I should like to know whether the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) has ever been on a local authority.

Mr. Thompson: Yes, for 15 years.

Mr. Pannell: I have been on four local authorities. The slipshod arrangements which have characterised the administration with which the hon. Gentleman has been associated are not the arrangements to which I have been used. We suffer in these debates from the fact that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary had even a nodding acquaintance with local government before they took office.
A purchase under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act has normally to be recorded in the minutes of local authority finance committees, and most local authorities are rather tender on the subject. Many local authority standing orders expressly provide that there can be no negotiations during the summer vacation period, and no general power is given to chairmen.
I have been on the collective committees of local authority associations in my time and I do not think that my title to speak for local government in a representative capacity will be challenged by many hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not know any matter in which there is the indecent haste which is envisaged in the Bill. Even a proposal to erect a garage goes through the normal procedure, and all sorts of minor matters take a month or six weeks to get through.
We are concerned that no suspicion should rest on a local authority, especially where it has been given the power, without the assistance of the district valuer, to dispose of property below market price. When such powers are put into the hands of a local authority it is reasonable that it should be given adequate time so that the whole of the council shall have the opportunity of being aware of what is before it. We are legislating not only for good local authorities on whom

no suspicion is likely to rest but also for the odd case where we want to ensure that there shall be no ground for suspicion under this machinery.
I should have thought that a good local authority man would have insisted not that we should always put the power in the hands of the chairmen of committees and not that we should give unfettered discretion to isolated officials to run the affairs of the council in regard to property deals, but that we should provide machinery to make it possible for property deals to pass through all the normal committee stages and come under the notice of the main body of the council itself. That is the fair, reasonable and democratic thing to do.
So little safeguard is envisaged in this matter, and, in view of the reluctance of the Minister to bring into this matter the district valuer and the independent official of the Inland Revenue, I should have thought this would have been one safeguard which would appeal to hon. Members opposite.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) have submitted their point of view alone, which is how this affects the local authorities. There are two parties to this transaction, the local authority and the man who is selling the house. Suppose a workman who owns what was a council house has to move suddenly from one part of the country to another because of re-armament. Has he to wait three months before he gets a decision that the local authority will buy?
The tendency nowadays is to consider that the citizen is there for the local authority, instead of the local authority being there for the citizen. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that the local authorities have a service to perform to the citizen. If a man wants to sell a house under this Bill, and the local authority does not buy it, and if he sells to someone else, he will not make any more money. He will receive only precisely the same amount as he would from the local authority. If the local authority cannot conduct it affairs to make a decision of detail in a month, that is wrong.

Mr. Sparks: How can it be done?

Mr. Marples: A business firm has a board of directors which settles policy. That policy and the principles laid down by the board of directors are administered every day. If the managing director of I.C.I. goes away, it does not mean the firm cannot sell chemicals.

Mr. Pannell: Is it public money?

Mr. Marples: Of course, it is public money. I.C.I. is a public company to which the public have subscribed money.

Mr. Sparks: It is nothing like a local authority.

Mr. Marples: We must bear in mind the local authority is there for the service of the citizens.

Mr. MacColl: The I.C.I. can build up hidden reserves from ample capital reserves, out of which it can buy. A small local authority is not allowed by law to do so. It may find it is faced with the problem of having to buy a house, representing 3d. or 4d. on the rates.

Mr. Marples: The question of reserves has nothing to do with efficiency. Policy can be laid down and I cannot believe all the members of the council will go away precisely the same time. It is possible for the council to delegate responsibility. I would ask the House to consider the case of the man who legitimately wants to sell his house to a local authority. It is not fair for hon. Members opposite, who have a great deal of local government experience, to simply plug away at the difficulties of the local authorities.
What about the difficulties of the man who tries to sell his house? I would urge the Opposition to withdraw this Amendment. My right hon. Friend has given great thought to this matter and thinks a month is sufficient. Selling a house is not all that easy. As some hon. Members on both sides know, it is a question of picking the psychological moment to sell, just as when one is wooing the opposite sex.

Mr. Pannell: What experience does the hon. Gentleman speak from?

Mr. Marples: I have read books on the subject, and I think my greatest claim to be able to speak is that I have, so far, managed to keep away from it. At

any rate, I have some little knowledge of it.
There is a psychological moment when it is easy to sell a house. If a workman is moving from one part of the country to another, it is unreasonable to ask him to wait three months before the local authority makes up its mind whether or not it will buy.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to refer to a point that was put to the Minister during the Committee stage. While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having met a point of drafting, this matter is a lamentable instance of Ministerial obstinacy. I am talking not from local government experience, but about what happened when a provision like this was put in as regards interim development in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.
A submarine has just been made with three watertight compartments, so I am told, and I rather assume that there are three watertight compartments in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry. There is housing, there is local government, and somewhere down at the bottom, so low that it cannot even be mentioned nowadays, is town and country planning.
A similar provision was written into that Act specifying a period of two months in connection with interim development orders. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) who is in his place, knows all about this kind of thing and what happened to that provision. The Government found that they had to qualify it in the next Act and to allow the time to be extended, and then they had to take the provision out altogether.
The fact of the matter was that local councils could not be certain of answering applications for leave for interim development within a period of two months. [Interruption.] I do not venture to say anything about the peculiar and remarkable methods of local government in Liverpool—I am sure that they lead to the most remarkable results; but I am bound to say that it is a most extraordinary state of affairs when the people who are elected by the inhabitants of the place, and who are responsible for the thing, say, "We have come to a policy decision—" which, I suppose, is either to sell or not to sell all the council houses—"and we now leave it to our officials


to decide about any given house, whether it is to be bought or not when it is offered to them." It that is the sort of way in which local government is being carried on, far too much is being left by the elected and responsible councillors of Liverpool, or wherever it is, to the officials of the Corporation, and they are not fulfilling their public duty by taking that sort of line. They ought to decide a matter of this sort.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would not wish deliberately to mispresent either what I said or what happens in Liverpool.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Member said that just now.

Mr. Thompson: The fact is that in a large authority such as Liverpool, and in comparable large local authorities throughout the country, matters of policy are decided by the elected committee, and their administration is in the hands of principal officials, supervised by the chairman and deputy-chairman of the elected committee. It is a perfectly normal procedure, which enables the day to day business of a local authority of that size to be carried out. Without that system, day to day local authority work simply could not be carried out.

Mr. Mitchison: I have two comments to make on that. In those circumstances, it becomes completely inexplicable how it was that the local authorities were un- able to answer the town and country planning applications within a period of two months and, accordingly, the Section in the 1932 Act had to be amended. What was wrong once as regards two months is just as wrong now as regards one month. The Ministry ought to learn by experience. My second comment is that if that is the practice of local authorities, as stated by the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson)—and I note that my hon. Friends do not agree with him in the least—then it is a slack, wrong, and irresponsible practice in regard to this matter.

Mr. K. Thompson: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, I am anxious to help—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has spoken twice already.

Mr. J. T. Price: Surely the hon. Member for Walton and the Parliamentary Secretary have entirely overlooked the provisions of the 1933 Act. The mechanics of a transaction of this kind will first operate through a finance committee, and once the finance committee has been convened and has considered the application they have no powers under the Measure to spend money. They could not authorise a transaction of this kind, or give authority to any officials of the council to act in the transaction, without the approval of full council. The period is too short because of the ordinary procedure of finance committee and full council. The procedure could not be completed in the period.

Sir Sidney Marshall: The councils have delegated powers that are commonly used in almost every case under the 1933 Act.

Mr. Pargiter: In the Local Government Act, 1933, it is expressly provided that before any money is spent there must be approval of an estimate from the Finance Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(5) Not less than one month before the sale of a house under the said paragraph (d) the district valuer shall report to the local authority his estimate of the market value of the house on the basis of a sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer subject to such covenants and conditions as the local authority intend to impose and thereafter for one year the report shall be available for inspection in the office of the local authority by any local government elector for the area of the authority.
This Amendment, as I see it, deals with when a house shall be sold back to the local authority. First, a word or two about the district valuer. The Minister seems to imply in every argument he puts to the House that district valuers are somehow used only for a different sort of valuation from that envisaged here. But it is not uncommon for local authorities to give general directions or general information to a district valuer as to the sort of valuation, bearing in mind certain hypotheses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen may express surprise, but a local authority might very well have a project in mind in the ordinary course of their business when they envisage buying


certain properties. They may have it in mind to ask for a valuation based, for example, upon vacant possession of property or upon sitting tenant considerations.
It is not uncommon for district valuers to give various types of valuation. We dealt with this extensively in road widening schemes and compulsory acquisition schemes in the days before the war when we envisaged over a period of time buying up certain blocks of property. Consequently, the local authority would want that information in order to arrive at a valuation of the total amount involved in the project. I do not think that the Minister is on a good point in assuming that the district valuer, who is an official of the Board of Inland Revenue, is not necessarily competent to make these sort of valuations.
11.15 p.m.
It will be well known that the district valuer was called on many times by local authorities during the war, sometimes when requisitioned property had fallen into their hands, and later they may have wanted to buy it because the owner had moved away. Bearing in mind that the district valuer has been brought in automatically in such cases one would have thought him a reasonable person for the Minister to employ. I understand it is not the Minister's intention to use him when it is a matter of selling to a sitting tenant, but, of course, there is the other end of this business and when the local authority buys back one can be reasonably sure they will do so on reasonable advice.
Hon. Gentlemen will agree that the reason why valuation has gone out of the hands of local authorities is that, broadly speaking, they have never acted with any proper sense of uniformity. That has been so much the case that, to quote the case of the county of Kent, it even had a county valuation committee and paid half the valuers' fees of all their 56 local authorities in order to have uniformity of valuation. I offer that as an example of the necessity of having valuation that is generally uniform.
We are now embarking on an idea whereby local authorities themselves shall have some voice in determining the value of property, and I doubt whether

we shall get proper uniformity as between one and another, despite the directions of the Minister. The district valuer knows the district and knows more than one authority. He may know Leeds and its suburbs, or north-west Kent, or suburban Essex. Broadly speaking, he is not a local official, and I think it is reasonable that he should be called in rather than the matter left to the unfettered discretion of local authorities. We are all concerned to see that public money and property is disposed of in a way which is correct so that no scandal is brought up them. All of us who have been in local government have been keen about that, and I think this Amendment serves that end.

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for the good, old-fashioned legal reason that not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done. We do not know at this stage what sort of conditions the Minister is to impose for the operation of pre-emption, and so on, any more than we know anything about the conditions of sale, but what we are concerned about is that the local authorities will not lose, and that there will not be any suggestion that a local authority has given public money away.
The effect of the Amendment would be that there would be a reliable and impartial estimate of the value of the property under the conditions under which it was either sold or repurchased. If this were done, if a record of this kind were available, the members of the council—and I accept, of course, that it would not be the members of the council who would do the negotiating, but that it would be the officers of the council—would have an impartial guide as to how the decision was arrived at, and could see that it was a fair and just decision.
That would be particularly valuable in the case of improvements, and so on, if they were involved. There would be a record not only for the benefit of the council but for the benefit of the ratepayers, who could thus assure themselves that their interests had been properly looked after. I come back to my first point, that it is a question not only of doing justice but of letting it appear that justice is done, and I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Minister.

Mr. MacColl: I should have thought that this Amendment would have been one that essentially would have appealed to the Minister, because it does carry out the principle that he has been advocating so patiently throughout the discussion of this Bill, namely, that the local authorities should have discretion to meet a special case—in spite of a particular bargain. At the same time, it preserves the cleansing winds of publicity so that, at least, the ratepayers may know, as they are entitled to know, what is being done with their money.
The house is their own; it has been bought or built out of public funds; and it is now being sold, and is not being sold with the sanction of the best price. Therefore, it does seem wholly reasonable that there should be available for the local government elector who is interested to find out a comparison by which he may know precisely what is the loss which is falling on the local authority.
I have down an Amendment to the Amendment, in line 5, after "report," to insert:
together with a statement of the price paid or to be paid to the local authority.
Lest the fact that I have an Amendment down to the Amendment be quoted as being an example of Socialist disunity I should like to explain that my purpose in suggesting it is that it is important to see that not only the market price as assessed by the district valuer should be available for inspection but also that the price at which the house is actually sold should be available for inspection.
Of course, it will be a guide to the local authority, and a salutary warning to it, to know that the people to whom it is responsible, and to whom it will have to make an account at election time, will be able to find out precisely what is happening; and if there is any gross discrepancy between the prices it will be open to the council to explain how it was that the house was sold at a figure so much below the real value.
It will not in any way restrict them or interfere with the Minister's policy. What it will do is to ensure that everyone knows what the implications of that policy are and what it is costing the ratepayer in terms of loss on the sale of the house. I am sure the right hon.

Gentleman if he thinks about it will consider this a reasonable and constructive amendment and will be prepared to accept it.

Mr. Sparks: I cannot understand why the Minister is opposed so much to the use of the district valuer in these particular cases, because his Ministry is adamant, in most cases where local authorities apply for loans for acquisition of property, that the district valuer should submit a certificate of the value of the particular property it is proposed to acquire. On the basis of that certificate the Minister makes up his mind whether he will give his consent to the local authority to acquire any property they may have in mind.
But why he should want to spurn the professional advice of the district valuer in cases like this I do not know. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said just now that if the district valuer was employed all he would give would be the scarcity value. If the right hon. Gentleman would inquire a little more closely into the work of the district valuers he will see that they are not persons of one track minds. They are fully qualified valuers, whose values are based on all kinds of conditions. Obviously, in placing any value on property to be sold they will have to make allowances for any covenants or conditions the Minister might want to impose on the sale.
As this is a well-known practice insisted on by his Department in other respects, I cannot, as I have said, understand why he wants to leave the district valuer out of the calculations of the selling price of houses of this description. I can only come to one conclusion, and it is that the Minister fears that the district valuer's price will be so much in excess of the unreasonable figure he proposes to set as a minimum, and that has a closer relationship with previous Amendments we have discussed here tonight. After all, there must be some balance. The Minister admits that he will set a minimum. He knows it is too low, because he says that local authorities may sell for a higher figure. Could they not have the guidance of a professional man, who is used exclusively for the purpose, to get a fair and reasonable price at which a particular house, or block of houses, ought to be sold?
If the right hon. Gentleman tells local authorities that they may sell a house for so much and not less, or that they may charge more if they like, how can they decide whether they should charge more for a house than the Minister's minimum, unless they have some guidance from the district valuer, or a person who is in a position to be able to advise the authority about the relationship between a reasonable price and the figure the Minister gives?
The Minister leaves the local authorities completely in the dark in this matter, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said, I feel that if local authorities are to be allowed to sell a council house at a ridiculously low figure, then the ratepayers ought to know what is the district valuer's assessment of a reasonable value for the house. That fact alone will be an inducement to the local authority to sell the house, if they want to, at a price which is fair and reasonable to the ratepayers as well as to the purchaser.
Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a look at the matter again, because there is something in our arguments, despite the fact that he does not seem inclined to accept them. If he makes further inquiries in his Department, he will find that his officials are most rigid in insisting that the district valuer, in practically all cases in which his Ministry has to give consent, shall make an assessment of the value of the property before the Minister may give his consent to acquisition.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I think the House will agree that this has been a pleasant interlude. We have, in fact, had a number of hon. Members with local government experience appreciating the value of the services of a professional man in association with local government. That is rather a different type of discussion from that we usually have at this time, when lawyers are often criticising their fellow lawyers, who have spent hours in drafting Acts of Parliament, and are attacking one another's wording. We have been discussing a problem of local government administration and local government hon. Members have appreciated the professional services of the district valuer.
May I bring the House back to the point which I think is most fundamental in this Amendment? There is a distinct cleavage between the two sides of the House on whether these houses ought to be sold or not. So far as the Government are concerned, we understand—indeed, the Minister has said it on behalf of the Government—that they want to make it easy for persons to buy these houses, and he has admitted, in the discussion on the earlier part of the Clause which we have just passed, that the reason why the best possible price is not being asked for is because if, in fact, it was asked, there would be no sale. Therefore, to enable a sale to be effected, it is being made on favourable terms to the purchaser.
First of all, one must point out that there are two factors, and the Parliamentary Secretary, during the Committee stage, told us that the basis of the sale of these houses was to be, in the case of the pre-1945 houses, x years' purchase on the rent of the house, ignoring rates, water charges and special charges, and, in the case of the post-1945 houses, the cost to the local authority of providing the house, taking into account the cost of the land.
So far as the post-1945 houses are concerned, the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary is one we can readily understand, but let us look at the pre-1945 houses, which are the vast majority and which will be the most attractive proposition. Let us not prejudge the issue, but take account of the cost of these houses at about £1,500 to £1,700. Because of the dearer money policy of the Government, no ordinary working-class person will be able to afford the loan repayment and interest charges. Those people are therefore out of it, and this is the most attractive proposition at x years' purchase of these pre-1945 houses.
One of the problems of local government finance is that borrowing for land is over 80 years, for buildings 60 years, and for roads, drains and the rest 15 to 20 years. Here we have a rate fixed by a local authority of loan repayments over these periods, and, in addition, the local authority has the power—and the vast majority of local authorities have used it—to make a subsidy from the general


rate fund in order that the general rents of council houses could be lowered. That was much more applicable in the pre-1945 days, or perhaps I might say the pre-1939 days, than it is even today.
So we have a house the rent of which has been subsidised by an extended loan repayment period, which has been subsidised by a rate charge, becoming x years' purchase. I do not think it would be an extravagant guess to say that it might be 20 years' purchase. Unfortunately, in local government finance, after 10, 15 or 20 years, even, on a 60 years' loan the local authority still has a large sum outstanding so far as the original loan on the house is concerned. So, on 20 years' purchase of a house 15 years old it is more than likely that the local authority will not get back the outstanding loan debt on the house. That means the local authority is going to suffer loss.
That may not be the intention of the Government, but we have not yet seen what protection there is for the ratepayer on the basis of there being insufficient amount on the basis of the formula cover the loan outstanding. So far as the use of the local rate fund as a backing for a loan for a purchase under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, look at the ridiculous position we are going to be in. We have a house secured by the community on the basis of the value of the rates available in the area, and secured by the local rate fund charge. It is then going to be handed back at a price which does not cover the loan repayment. Then the local authority is to lend the money again to purchase the house; and again it is to secure that house and the payments on it against the local rates.
This Amendment is intended to give the local authority an opportunity to be certain that it is not losing money, and that no unfair treatment between one ratepayer and another, and between one tenant and another, is being exercised. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will accept the suggestion we make in regard to the district valuer. The fact that the district valuer has established such amicable arrangements between local authorities, and that he is so acceptable to local authorities and to Government departments ought to make this Amendment easily acceptable.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This Amendment is perhaps the last which will come be-

fore us tonight. Therefore, I would be very glad if I could accept it. That would have made an agreeable ending to what has been a controversial Bill, but one which has been argued with great knowledge by the Opposition and, I think I may say, with good temper on all sides.
When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper I was a little puzzled as to its purpose, and in the course of the debate there was apparently some duality of purpose. Both the mover and the seconder of the Amendment asked why should we not make available to the local authorities the services of the district valuer in order to help them in the difficult calculations which they will have to make. The mover referred to the problem of depreciation and improvement which would be difficult to assess by some mathematical formula because it was not a question of fact but of valuation. But this Amendment does not deal with the re-purchase but with the sale of the house.
The hon. Gentleman who wound up the debate made clear what I thought was the real purpose behind the Amendment: not so much to make available the services of a useful officer for whom we have great respect and on whom we rely locally and nationally, but rather to get a set of calculations, not relating to the actual sale price, but ones which would be of interest and a possible method of assessing what, if any, would be the advantage gained by, let us say, a sitting tenant who, after 10 or 15 years of tenancy, was given the opportunity by a local authority, which thinks it wise to do so, to purchase his house.
The district valuer would have been a valuable person if we were going to sell upon the basis of a market value but, whether it is right or not, we have passed that part of the Bill. The House has decided that, if these sales are to take place at all, it is not desirable that the full scarcity value, or the market value, or arms-length value should be exacted. The House has decided that it should be done upon a different basis, and that will not call for these professional services because the minima will be laid down on easily ascertainable facts.
As the hon. Gentleman generously said, in the case of the new post-war house it will be just the fact of what it


cost. There is no need to bring in this officer of the Inland Revenue to tell us what is the fact. If, as the hon. Gentleman said, the sale of the pre-war house were to be related to the event by multiplying it by so many years' purchase, that, again, is a matter of fact, and there is no need to bring in a calculation. Once the formula is laid down as the minimum which must be charged, there is no need for the services of a district valuer.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying to the local authority that the minima which he is laying down he will expect them to charge for the house? If, on the other hand, he is going to give them the power to sell at a higher figure than that minima, what formula is he going to advance to them to enable them to arrive at a fair and just addition?

Mr. Macmillan: We are to relieve the local authority of the statutory duty to sell it at the market price of today, including the scarcity value. If we were not going to do that, the district valuer would be a very useful officer to discover what was the scarcity value at the market price of the day.
11.45 p.m.
We do it quite differently. We say, "We give you authority to sell them but we have put in a minima to protect the proprieties, the ratepayers and everybody concerned," and we lay down what the minima should be, relieving them of the duty to charge a scarcity value. We could not wash it out and put nothing in its place, so we put in minima. I do not think that is a calculation which will require the sort of services which the district valuer can usefully give.
Its only purpose was hinted at in the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), that if the district valuer calculated the scarcity value there would then be an opportunity of showing the advantage which had been given to the sitting tenant compared with what he would have had to pay had the full scarcity value been exacted from him. That might be an interesting calculation, but one might just as well say that I should lay before every tenant entering a council house the degree of subsidy being paid on the house—it is running at more than £700 per house—so that it should be clear to everybody. I do not think that that is necessary.
This is a simple affair. Some people do not want the houses sold at all, and that is a good argument, but if they are to be sold I think it has been generally agreed that they could not be sold—there would be no object in it and no hope of doing it—at the full scarcity value. Therefore, it is not an unreasonable course to remove the obligation to sell at the full scarcity value which, if it remained, would certainly be a useful thing for the district valuer to value, and to put in its place a minimum below which the local authority shall not sell the house. The compulsory use of the district valuer will not be of any use in calculating that.
I hope that with that explanation the House will feel that it is not necessary to press the Amendment as the main body of the Bill approving the general scheme has been passed.

Mr. MacColl: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "scarcity value"? He has used the phrase as if it were something objectively determined and something which everybody knew. The Amendment refers to the selling price in the case of a willing seller and a willing buyer, and a contract made by a willing seller and a willing buyer would not have in it that degree of compulsion which is generally implied by the "full scarcity value being extorted from the unfortunate purchaser" argument used in the past.

Mr. Macmillan: if the district valuer is not to value the market value, I do not see what intermediate valuation he is expected to make or what guidance the Amendment would give him. If it is to be done at all, the procedure we have adopted will be the best. The suggested procedure would merely add to the complications.

Amendment negatived.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
0
At this late hour, when public transport is likely to become more difficult to obtain, I am sure the House will not expect me to make a long speech. Throughout the stages of the Bill the debates have been conducted with the utmost good temper on both sides in spite of the deep differences of opinion on certain prin-


ciples which exist between the two sides of the House. As in the case of all these Bills, especially to younger hon. Members, the debates on the Bill have been salutary. We have learned a great deal about the facts of local government and the sale of council houses, and we have acquired a degree of humility which comes to all of us when we discuss these matters at length, as we did in Committee and on the Report stage.
This Bill does three things, the most important of which is that it gives subsidies and continues them to local authorities to enable them to carry on with their housing programmes. My right hon. Friend has been criticised because some people have said the subsidies are too high. I would ask these people to remember that the Government came into power and had to operate a going concern from the technical point of view. The only instrument which could continue to build the houses was the local authority, and it would have been folly, when the interest rate of money was raised because the general economic health of the community required it, not to have increased the subsidies in such a manner as to enable the local authorities to continue their building programmes.
There was no option but to continue the same level of subsidy as in the past, bearing in mind the rate of interest. Otherwise, one would have disrupted the entire building machine. To those who say the subsidies are too low, I would point out that the local authorities' associations were satisfied and, the fact they are not too low, has been shown by the way local authorities have responded to the exhortations and administrative arrangements my right hon. Friend has made to increase house building. The rate of house building—the completion of houses, the starting of houses, and the number of houses under construction—has risen remarkably in these last few months. That shows the subsidy was not too low for the purpose my right hon. Friend has in mind. All in all, the balance of the rate of subsidy has been about right.
On the selling of houses, I would point out that we, on these benches, think that the person who wants a house should have a freedom of choice, whether he is a tenant or is going to be an owner. The

hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. G. Lindgren), has subscribed to that view, I think, but differs as to whether this is the right time and whether the circumstances are appropriate. We met that point right through the passage of this Bill, by saying there is no compulsion on local authorities to sell houses. The initiative and inspiration will spring from them. They will not be dominated nor compelled to sell houses by the Minister.
If we accept the principle that council houses should be sold, it is right and proper the price should be one which is not a profiteers' price. With the safeguards which the House has decided in the Committee stage—the five year period when they cannot sell at too high a price, etc.—I think the finances of the local and municipal authorities are well protected. With these few words I commend this Bill and I hope that the Opposition will not divide against it.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. de Freitas: On the Second Reading of this Bill, we likened it to the contrast in the Tory Party, the contrast between good and evil. We said there is something good in Clause 1 and a great deal of evil in Clauses 2 and 3. The Minister, in the course of the Committee stage, was not very responsive to our arguments. Thus, we still find something good in Clause 1 and something evil in Clauses 2 and 3.
One of the difficulties in making a fresh, lively speech on Third Reading is that the Bill is very much the same as it was during its Second Reading. On nearly every point in Committee, we felt we had out-debated the Government but the Minister stood firm and with great style and eloquence said, "No." My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), who put some of our forceful arguments in poetry, drew only blank verse from the Minister: but it was a smooth and polished job.
The subsidies provided in Clause 1 do not fulfil the undertaking which the Minister gave in this House on 19th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). We believe that the housing authorities are slowly, but surely, realising the severe penalty they have to


pay for the dear money policy of the Government.
The Minister came to my constituency during the Election and said that he looked forward in this Parliament to much less legislation and much more administration. If the Bill is an example of the Government's legislation and their dear money policy an example of their administration, we look forward to much less of both.
I only hope that Clause 2 will not exist for too long. It is essentially Tory, and it is the kind of Toryism which sets aside so much of the good that has been done in the countryside of recent years by the co-operation between the unions of agricultural workers and the National Farmers' Union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) intervened earlier to point out that the law of eviction today is recognised to be harsh but that the workers and farmers had got together and done much to mitigate the harshness of the law.
The Clause and the Amendment that we had today have been thrown into the Bill without consultation with the Union. The farmworkers see the Government as coming down heavily on the side of the farmers in a matter which in the countryside is a matter of high controversy. They see public money given to private owners to increase the number of tied cottages, which they regard as an injustice. The farmworker, after six years of a Labour Government, has come to expect a house not only as good as that of the city worker, but on terms as good as that of the city worker.
Clause 3 deals with the selling of houses. It is part of the Government's policy to sell houses now, and this policy could have most disastrous results on the position of people in the housing queue. As the "Manchester Guardian" pointed out as soon as the Government's policy was announced in November of last year, it could have two results. It could reduce the number of houses available for rent, because houses once sold would hardly ever again be offered for rent; and secondly, it could reduce the standard of housing accommodation, because many of the houses would come into the hands of owners who could not maintain them as the councils did.
The fact is that councils do not appear to be at all keen to sell these houses. The Parliamentary Secretary said—and he applied it to me—that in the Committee we were surrounded by Members who had had long experience in local government. I had a comparatively short experience of local government, and therefore I sat at the feet of wisdom to learn from my hon. Friends, one of whom had been on four councils and had considerable experience. Like the Minister, I learned a great deal.
One of the things we have learned, is by the much more simple method of sending out a questionnaire from the Labour Party headquarters. Of the first 250 councils who have replied to our questionnaire as to their attitude to selling houses, although three-quarters of them are Conservative, 136 are against selling and only 27 are in favour. The rest are undecided.
I emphasise that that questionnaire dealt with sale at present, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) mentioned it and it is common ground on this side of the House, we are not against selling as such. We are against selling at this time, just as we made it clear on Second Reading that we are in favour of tenants owning their own houses. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a new one."] If the hon. Member had been here on Second Reading, he would have heard me and many of my colleagues say, as we have said for years, that what we were against is the selling of the houses at present.
We are in favour of tenants owning their houses. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] As a result of six years of Labour Government there are more people owning their own houses in this country than ever before. It is very good and we say it is right. There are between 4 million and 5 million people owning the houses in which they live. [Interruption.] I will send the hon. Gentleman an extract from HANSARD. Probably I have spoken too loudly and woken up one or two Members.
Is this Bill good or bad? There is some good in it and there is a lot bad in it. The Minister was exceedingly stubborn in a most elegant way and we failed to improve Clauses 2 and 3. But we did not divide against the Bill on


Second Reading and we shall not divide against it tonight. If it becomes law, it will depend on the way it is administered. We shall watch that with anxiety, because this Government has a poor record in administration.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has once again raised the question of Clause 2. I should not like it to be thought that agricultural Members on this side of the House are to let the Bill go without offering a vote of thanks to my right hon. Friend for having brought in Clause 2 and resurrecting something of great value to the agricultural industry.
This Clause brings in the return of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which was allowed to lapse by the Socialist Party in 1946. That Act was of inestimable benefit to the workers in the countryside. I speak with some experience, because I have done up for myself and my clients 15 cottages under the old Act and men are now living in them in comfort, enjoying the benefits. The only benefit that has accrued to the owners is that they have more satisfied workers. Therefore, I thank my right hon. Friend for the Bill, and particularly for putting in an Amendment that will now make it impossible for the old gibe of eviction to be brought against landlords.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) argued for this eloquently in Committee, and I am glad that the result is that we now have this protection, to a certain extent, for the farm worker. I do not know whether it means that at the end of four weeks it will be necessary to go to the court, but for myself I would not mind if that were so. None of us likes summary eviction; in fact, few of us have ever had a case. I have been in the industry for many years and have never had a case myself.
The Members of the party opposite, who opposed Clause 2, maintained that there have been many cases of summary eviction. When they were challenged to bring forward these cases, they were not forthcoming. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) was challenged in Committee, and he said he would. I have in my possession a

brief evidently prepared for Members opposite who wanted to speak on this Bill. There are about 15 cases quoted, obviously selected from all over England in an endeavour to find the worst cases. There is only one case of summary eviction on the list—the case of a man who worked on the farm only six weeks. I imagine there was some history at the back of that.
In other cases, a period of as much as two years intervened before eviction took place, so that all the gibes about summary eviction and being turned out at a moment's notice have no substance in fact, and if that is the best the opponents of this Clause can bring forward they have a very poor case.

Mr. Speaker: I have doubts about how far it is in order to go into the question of summary eviction on Third Reading. There is really very little about it in the Bill. There is one safeguard which does not seem enough to justify raising the whole question of eviction.

Mr. Pannell: May I point out, Sir, that in Committee we spent the whole of one morning on this matter? What the hon. Gentleman is now saying is highly controversial and not truthful. I am afraid that the debate will have to be very much extended if this line is pursued.

Mr. Speaker: On Third Reading we are strictly limited to what is in the Bill. This sort of discussion, although it may be alluded to, cannot be carried too far.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not know whether I am entitled to take up the point about what I was saying not being truthful, Sir. What I have said was quite truthful. Out of the 15 cases quoted in this document only one was a case of summary eviction.

Mr. Speaker: I think the position is that the hon. Gentleman has denied that, and I hope we can pass on now to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Baldwin: From the farming point of view we welcome this Bill, and particularly do we welcome the fact that we have now got this four weeks' notice in the Bill, which will do away from the old gibe of summary eviction used in the placards of the National Union of Agricultural Workers for many years. What they will use on their banners in future I do not know.

Mr. Mitchison: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. Gentleman rightly he has completely misunderstood the contents of the Bill. He is now saying that there can no longer be any question of eviction in this country except on a four weeks' notice. That is not in the Bill. There is nothing of that sort in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly true. All the Bill does, even in its amended form on Report, is to provide a certain protection for the tenants of houses which have received assistance for reconditioning under this Bill, which is a very much narrower point than that of eviction from tied cottages. That is certainly out of order.

Mr. Baldwin: I was speaking of summary eviction under this Bill. Anyone who takes a grant under this Bill cannot have summary eviction. I think that is so and for what has been done we thank the right hon. Gentleman.
I regret that in the passage of this Bill in all its stages attempts have been made to stir up strife between the farmer and his worker. We are a fairly happy family, and we do not have this trouble. We regret these attempts to stir up strife in our industry. Hon. Gentlemen who have no connection with the industry should stick to their own industry, and not try to create strife and discord where none exists.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I have been interested in the development of the argument of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). First of all, he said that this Bill is welcomed by the farmers. One can always understand that. Farmers will always welcome public money being dished out to them, and this is another example of public money being dished out for property which they could well pay for themselves.

Mr. Baldwin: Would the hon. Gentleman refuse to let us do the same for the farm worker as is done for the tenants of the council houses, some of whom earn £1,000 a year?

Mr. Pargiter: If I were living in a private house in a town I would not be able to go to the Government and say that I wanted this money, except under

certain conditions. Those conditions are that the house shall be available for normal letting at a rent already determined. Here, however, we are doing away with the start which we made in dealing with the tied cottage evil; we are doing away with relevant provisions of the 1949 Act, under which we decided that the tenancy of the house should be a normal tenancy. That was what the farming community objected to, because, presumably, they wanted to keep the tied cottages.
The hon. Gentleman said he was not aware of what will happen at the end of the four weeks. It seems to me obvious what will happen. Whereas farmers, in the past, have been in doubt whether or not they could evict, and have gone to the court, and whereas the farm workers may have been given some little protection for a limited period by the court, now the farmers will be able to say to tenants, "Here is the law. After the four weeks' notice, out you go." That, I think, is a fair conclusion to draw from the Bill. This is a retrograde step.
We have to accept the Bill because its main purpose—its ostensible purpose—is to deal with the question of subsidy. Elsewhere, a proposal of the mixed sort in this Bill would be called sharp practice—a proposal offering something desirable with so much that is objectionable. We have to accept the Bill, and cannot do other than accept it, because of Clause 1; but that does not alter our objection to much else in the Bill.
As to the question of the sale of houses, the Parliamentary Secretary said it was perfectly clear that there was no pressure on the local authorities to sell houses. On the face of it, that may be so. Nevertheless, the pressure is there—or will be there. I wonder how far this is the thin end of the Tory wedge. I wonder how long it will be—it will not be long, because we shall not have Tory Ministers for long—before they will be saying to local authorities, "The cost of subsidies is very high, and bears very heavily on your rates and the national Exchequer, but if you sell your houses you will be relieved of your subsidy rate charges and the Exchequer will be relieved, too, of its contributions."
That is how the pressure will come, and it seems to me that there will be


ample scope for pressure to be applied in that way on local authorities, and that it may be that in the end the local authorities will be selling houses to whomsoever can afford to buy them, who will not necessarily be those with the greatest need of houses.
The Minister has refused to extend the pre-emption period to seven years, in spite of our wish to have that done. The effect of his refusal will be that at the end of five years, of the pre-emption period, a person will be perfectly free to do exactly as he likes, and to dispose of his house at a profit. I do not know what original covenants the local authorities will apply, or whether they will be carried out by heirs and successors. I do not know how all that will operate.
However, it seems to me that this sort of thing will happen under this Bill, that if a man, having bought a house, has to move to another place altogether because of his work—a change of job, for instance—but within the pre-emption period, after only four years, he will have to sell under the conditions; but the man who buys will have only a year to go before he can sell it at a profit.
That is my reading of the Bill. Preemption can operate only in respect of one person, or else over a period of five years for any number, and there will be people who will do very well out of it. That part of the Bill is extremely bad, because it will affect not only sitting tenants but new houses—the Minister has made that clear—and new houses will go to the people who can afford to buy them, not necessarily to the people having most need of them, and who cannot afford to buy them.
Let us take the case of two equal cases of housing needs. One person can afford to pay for a house, the other cannot afford to do so. What will be the position of the local authority? Some local authorities—at least the more reactionary of them—will show a tendency to sell to the person who is able to pay, which brings us back to the argument that the person with the purse will get the house, and the one without a purse will not. That is departing from the principle of local authorities providing houses to meet the needs of the people. These provisions are thoroughly bad, and I hope they will not be used often and to that

extent that the Bill is inoperative in Clauses 2 and 3, it is a good Bill.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Lindgren: It is customary on Third Reading to congratulate the Minister on getting his Bill a stage nearer the Statute Book. We on this side of the House cannot do it on this Bill, but on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I wish to say that we appreciate the courtesy of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, as well as their patience during what to them must have been a long and tedious Committee stage, which was extended by the detailed discussions we had, without much effect, on the various parts of the Bill.
We do not welcome the Bill because, first of all, it increases the subsidy both nationally and locally through the deliberate policy of Her Majesty's Government in increasing the price of money. Instead of preventing a steep rise in rent charged by local authorities, and therefore resulting in a claim for more wages, it permits an increase in the subsidy. We feel that the policy of cheaper money advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—and advanced very effectively—and which was appreciated by local authorities because it was a policy of providing services for the people rather than just using it as a commodity, is the one which is commendable to everyone.
A further unfortunate and retrograde feature of the Bill, which I am surprised Tory Members representing rural constituencies have not taken to heart at all, is the interference with the previous Government's policy of a preferential subsidy for rural areas. In this Bill the Minister is taking the right to withdraw or withhold the special subsidy for rural housing in certain circumstances, which means that those members of the rural community who were able to enjoy this subsidy at one time will not enjoy it now. It will make more difficulties for the rural district councils, and for those railwaymen, postal workers and others who live in rural communities. Because the Minister is given power under the Bill to withdraw the subsidy granted by previous Governments rural workers on rural wage structures will have to pay higher rents for their houses, and it is known that the wages structure in agri-


culture determines the general wages structure in a number of other industries in these areas.
Rural district councils have used the subsidy for rural housing and made it available for other houses. They have pooled them, as was allowed under the 1936 Act, and it is true that workers not associated directly with agriculture have taken advantage of their local council pooling their accounts on what was normally intended as an agricultural subsidy.
On the sale of houses, I have said on a number of occasions, but it sometimes seems to be misunderstood, that we do not object to persons owning their own houses, but we do object to the sale of council houses. We much prefer the provisions enacted by previous Tory Governments in the 1923 and 1936 Acts, which provided for tenant purchase schemes, but which very few successive Tory Ministers, after being given the power in those Acts, have allowed the local councils to operate, and, in fact, there were more schemes approved under the 1923 Act than under that of 1936.
When it comes to the general question of the owner-occupier, we feel that a totally different type of scheme has to be conceived by the local authority, and that the 1936 Act is a much better medium for local authorities to help people to own their own houses, because they were provided for under schemes of collective management and making available a general pool of houses for renting.
The other point is that, although this Bill is an encouragement to people to buy their own houses, it is also, by the dearer money policy of the Government, making it impossible for them to do so. The rates of interest now being charged by local authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, and the various Sections of the Housing Acts, and by the Public Works Loan Board, building societies, insurance companies or whatever source the money comes from, have increased to such an extent that the ordinary person will not now be able to afford the interest charges and loan repayments on 20 years' purchase of these houses.
While, on the one hand, the Bill makes it possible for houses to be purchased, it does not make this any easier for people

to do it, because, in fact, they have to pay a greater rate of interest charges on the money they borrow. Although appreciating the conduct of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in the handling of the Bill, and although we dislike the Bill, since Clause 1 includes the essential subsidy which was asked for by the local authorities, we do not intend to divide the House against it on Third Reading.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: When a Minister in charge of a Bill hears a leading Member of the Opposition saying that he does not propose to divide against the Third Reading, perhaps it is a little foolhardy for the Minister to step in, because he might in some way spoil that admirable sentiment.
I only do so because I want to thank both hon. Gentlemen for what they have said, and, particularly, for the courtesy which has been shown to me by them during the long progress of this Bill. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into a discussion of cheap money. It is, of course, like brandy, in that it may have unfortunate effects if taken in too large quantities, and sometimes on those who find themselves in the nature of subscribers to the loans.
When the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) expressed his determination not to vote against the Bill, I was a little surprised, as he went on to deal with it Clause by Clause to say that each one was bad. He said that Clause 1 was a breach of an undertaking of mine—one cannot have anything worse than that—that Clause 2 was bad, that Clause 3 was bad, that Clause 4 did nothing in particular and that Clause 5 was mere definition. Yet he then decided not to vote against the Bill. On the same principle, having said that the Amendment which I accepted from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), did nothing but harm, the Opposition did not divide against it. After all these things, so late at night, it is perhaps better to leave the matter with the agreeable feeling that we have done a good job.
I would like to say one thing about the main part of the Bill, important as Clauses 2 and 3 are from different aspects. It is the subsidy part, which is the main


reason for the Bill. I think I carried out exactly what I said I would. The local authorities think so. In the whole of the negotiations with the local authorities' organisations they were satisfied with the suggestions in Clause 1. There was no dissentient voice. The negotiations were carried on in a friendly manner, and no suggestion was made for carrying the further burden in any but the normal proportion between the Exchequer and the rates.
I am grateful for the help they gave me. What has happened since is that they have not shown any dissatisfaction with the terms on which they are asked to build houses. They have not said, "We will have no more of your allocations on these terms." They have said, "We like your instalments," and they are coming along for more and more. I am giving them more and more.
As for the story that fewer houses are to be built to let, I say that more will be built. More have been built in the last five months. This promises that, unless some sudden catastrophe overwhelms this country, this year there will be more houses built to let than have ever been built. I do not worry about that story, and I do not think that the local authorities are anxious about it. What they are anxious about is how they are to go further under the plans laid down by the Bill.
However, I am grateful that the Opposition are not going to divide against the Bill, and that, although it is bad, or almost entirely bad, there are little bits of goodness which encourage them not to press us further. I am also grateful for the personal courtesy and kindness shown to me, and I hope that in the conduct of other Bills I shall be fortunate enough to have similar Members on the Committee, and similar leaders on the Opposition benches.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL PARKS (ADMINISTRATION)

12.29 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I regret that I should have to keep the House a little longer this evening, and in particular I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I know, has had a heavy day, has to stay another half an hour to deal with what I hope he will regard as an important subject falling under the control of his Ministry. I hope he will also agree that it is not a matter which ought to be the subject of party political dispute. It is a subject which has aroused great interest among many people, whose views I want to put to him.
It seems to me that the Ministry, and those concerned, for the present, with the inauguration of the National Parks, speak in a different language from other people. When the Ministry, or sometimes the Parliamentary Secretary, talk about the parks and their administration, they seem to be talking of different things from what many of us mean, and it is to try to clear up some of these points that I am anxious to have a reply from the Minister.
The "Manchester Guardian," in a leading article yesterday, put this point about the difference of attitude towards National Parks. It said that if the Minister could make a clear statement as to what he understood by the term "National Parks" in this debate, the debate would be of value.
I hope we can go further. I hope we can impress upon the Minister this morning the serious concern that is being shown about this matter among many groups of people all over the country. We are prepared to encourage the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to change their minds as to the broad purpose and character of National Parks because it seems to be so necessary.
I want to take this opportunity of reminding the hon. Gentleman of what John Dower originally said in his Report. Unfortunately, he died some years ago but I am proud to regard him as having been a great friend. He said:
A National Park may be defined, in application to Great Britain, as an extensive area of


beautiful and relatively wild country in which, for the nation's benefit and by appropriate national decision and action, (a) the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly preserved, (b) access and facilities for public open-air enjoyment are amply provided, (c) wild life and buildings and places of architectural and historic interest are suitably protected, while (d) established farming use is effectively maintained.
That conception of the essentially national value of these parks was stressed also in the Hobhouse Report when they said that the administration should be for the nation's benefit by appropriate national decision and action. Clearly, National Parks must be national in fact as well as in name.
That is the point I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary now. It appears to many of us that these National Parks are becoming not much more than local parks. This danger was stressed when the National Parks Act was discussed in this House some time ago. That Measure made many concessions to the position of local authorities. For example, in that Act we provided that the Commission, instead of having wide powers, was little more than an advisory body. Again, it provided that the joint boards or committees to be set up for certain parks were to have only one-third national representatives, two-thirds being from the local authorities. So the interests of the local authorities were amply protected and hon. Members on both sides of the House at the time said they had real fears about whether these National Parks were not fiction.
What has happened since the Act was passed? We find that during these last few years there has been continued pressure upon successive Ministers to whittle away even the small amount of representation that was provided. For example, we find that when it was proposed to set up the Peak National Park, there was strong pressure upon the Minister to provide merely for an advisory committee without any really effective powers. That pressure was withstood and a joint planning board was set up. And, what is of real significance, a planning officer was appointed with reasonable financial resources. Because of that independent board and proper planning officer with some financial provision, it has been a most successful

board in the Peak District and we are all conscious of the excellent work done in that case.
In the case of the Lake District there was, unfortunately, some weakening. My right hon. Friend, when Minister, resisted the pressure to establish merely an advisory committee and insisted upon a joint planning board, but did not go so far as to insist upon a planning officer. Because of that lack there have been difficulties in the case of the Lake District Park, which we should all have hoped would be one of the most vital and most successful of the schemes. Some useful work has been done, but many of the most vital jobs remain to be tackled. Friends of mine who know the area very well are disappointed at the lack of progress because there is no planning officer.
The most important case of all where I feel that the whole conception of a National Park has been upset is that of Snowdonia. That is one of the most vital areas in the whole country, which many of us have walked and know well. In this case my right hon. Friend made his views known, and, in spite of pressure, he decided that a joint planning board ought to be set up. But that view was set aside by the present Minister, unfortunately, and in a most curious letter to the local authorities he declared his intention to give way to their pressure and set up merely a joint advisory committee. The letter said:
The Minister cannot doubt that the National Parks Commission are right in believing that a National Park ought to be administered by one authority and that, therefore, a joint board would be likely to give better results than a system which would leave responsibility for administration of the Acts of 1947 and 1949 in the hands of the three county councils aided by a joint advisory committee …
In spite of that, he proposed that merely an advisory committee should be set up. It seems doubtful, to say the least, whether, legally, the Minister is intending to take right action there and whether, in view of his expressed doubts about the procedure to be adopted, he has the powers that he seems to think he has. One of the interested bodies has taken legal opinion on the matter, and it seems very clear that a very strong case can be made for arguing that the Minister's proposal is not valid in law.
Quite apart from that, which is not to me the most important matter, it seems to be clear that it would be quite hopeless to conceive of an effective National Park in the conception of John Dower, the Hobhouse Report or any of us who have worked so strongly over the years for the establishment of National Parks. What we are likely to get in the North Wales-Snowdonia area is merely a local park provision with none of the wider provision and the wider vision that we looked for, and we may even get two local parks and not just one.
I want to make the further point—I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) will have an opportunity of speaking, in view of his very great experience and knowledge—that there is not only serious anxiety among many open-air organisations—not just a few odd individuals—about the progress being made and the attitude being adopted by the Ministry today, but also a wider concern about the future of the National Parks Commission itself. There have been suggestions that it is the intention of the Ministry not to press forward further with the designation of National Park areas. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able straightaway to give an assurance that he is as anxious as all of us are to carry on the excellent work that the National Parks Commission has started and to carry forward the designation of further areas which are now under consideration.
I hope that he will give the assurance that his right hon. Friend will reconsider the decision he has taken already because of the very real harm that can be done to what was, I believe, an inspiring project and one to which many bodies of all kinds, and the most responsible Press, gave their support. If I cannot convince him in any other words, may I remind him of that journal known as "Nature," and published, by coincidence, by a firm called MacMillan, Ltd. In it, there is a potent article on the subject of National Parks in the issue of Saturday, 31st May, 1952, to which, I trust, he will draw his right hon. Friend's attention. I hope he will convince his right hon. Friend that this is not a matter which concerns only a few people, but a large number of organisations throughout the country.

12.41 a.m.

Sir Edward Keeling: I agree with everything which the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has said; and I would draw attention to the fact that in the last four or five days three eminent journals have severely criticised the administration of the National Parks Act by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to the leading articles on Monday in the "Manchester Guardian" and at the end of last week in the "Estates Gazette" and "Country Life." The "Manchester Guardian" on Monday was the most severe. It declared:
… Ministerial assurances, the principles of the Act, and finally the explicit provisions of the Act, one by one have been cast aside …
No doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to these criticisms. I have only time to draw attention to three points. The first has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. That is the proposal—fortunately, it is not yet a decision—of the Minister to reverse his predecessor's approval of there being a single planning board in the Snowdonia National Park. My right hon. Friend proposes to leave it to the three county councils, each of which will be responsible for its own area, with a joint advisory committee, which of course will have no powers at all.
This means, as the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, that it will not be a National Park, except in name. It will merely be three county parks. Let me quote what "Country Life" said last week about this proposal:
No reasonable justification has yet been advanced for the Minister's decision to reverse his predecessor's approval of a joint planning board for Snowdonia National Park. This decision clearly defies the intention of the Act.
Later, "Country Life" adds:
The Minister is apparently willing to let the national and independent controls provided by the Act go by the board.
I urge that this proposal should not be proceeded with, especially in view of the fact, mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, that it is very doubtful whether the Minister can legally do so, in contradiction of what he has already said in writing.
My second point refers to the proposed National Park on the North York-


shire moors. A public inquiry is to be held about this next week in Yorkshire. There appears to be a good deal of local opposition to having a Park at all. Fears have been expressed that the National Park will interfere with agriculture. That seems to be a total misconception. There is no ground for thinking that a National Park here or anywhere else will do so. A National Park should not, need not, and will not affect agriculture in any way at all, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if he agrees with that, to make it clear with his authoritative voice.
My last point is the refusal, or at least the neglect, of some county councils to keep footpaths in repair. Nearly three years ago we passed the National Parks Act, Section 46 of which imposed the obligation on rural highway authorities to keep rights of way in repair. The county council now has exactly the same duty to repair footpaths that it has to repair roads. Of course the vast majority of paths do not normally need repair, but the bridges and stepping stones incidental to rights of way quite often do.
It is three years since that obligation was imposed by the Act, but some county councils still contend, or they did until a few days ago, that their obligation does not begin until the maps, provided for by Section 32, showing the footpaths, have been completed. In the meantime, they have refused to repair even admitted rights of way. In the debate that took place on 6th December last the Parliamentary Secretary supported this view of the county councils. He said that he very much regretted that we must wait until the end of December this year, when the maps would be completed. I maintained that the obligation existed already and it was not necessary to wait.
I am glad to see that now at last the county councils have admitted that the Parliamentary Secretary was wrong and that I was right. A conference took place quite recently, and the County Councils' Association have agreed that "the responsibility of county councils with regard to the repair of public paths in rural districts already exists and is not dependent upon the preparation and publication of the map."
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that, the law being no

longer in dispute, his Department will give every possible help in getting paths kept in order by highway authorities in accordance with their statutory responsibilities.

12.49 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The nine minutes that remain for this Adjournment debate do not give me very much time to answer the comprehensive issues which have been raised. If I am unable to answer all of them, the two hon. Members must blame only their own exuberance and verbosity, and not my discourtesy. I say that, because it is more than likely that the journals that have shown a great interest in this matter will say that the Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with this point or that. The reason will be that there was not sufficient time.
The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) for raising this matter. I have the same deep personal interest in the National Parks that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) have. The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East tonight was moderate. His speeches in the country are not always quite so moderate.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Nor are the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member appears very mild on occasions when he is here, but some of his speeches in the country have been more violent and have not done any good to the cause he has at heart. Had he really had an interest in the National Parks, as he says—and I am sure that he has—his Government could have framed the Act so that every single thing that he wanted was mandatory. Had his Government done that in the six years when they were in office and passed the Act, these difficulties would not have arisen.
Most of the debate has criticised the administrative set-up. Right from the beginning of the National Parks Act, as passed by the previous Government, the criticism of all the newspapers and of the "amenity fans," as I call them, like my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, has been against the administrative


set-up. But we must differentiate as far as the National Parks are concerned between what we want to do, and the machinery for doing it.
What do we mean by a National Park, and what is it designed to? When we get agreement on this, we can argue later about the administrative set-up. A National Park in this country is not the same as a national park in Canada or in the United States; it is an entirely different proposition. In those countries, a national park is a national playground. They are large countries with small populations. Here, we have 50 million people in an extremely small island.
Let me state what my right hon. Friend considers that the National Parks ought to do. First, regarding future development. The idea is to ensure that any areas of natural beauty and of great possibilities for recreation are strictly controlled as far as development is concerned, so that the natural beauty is preserved. In these crowded islands, it is not always possible completely to prevent some development, which quite a number of us would like to stop altogether—sometimes, but not always, for example, quarrying for limestone, use by the military authorities, and so on. We want to make sure that this sort of thing is allowed in these areas only if, literally, we cannot help it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I did not refer to this tonight.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member asked what we thought the National Parks ought to be.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Do not answer questions that I did not ask.

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member does not want me to answer his questions, I will pass to footpaths, to which my hon. Friend referred. Let us put it on record, because the "Manchester Guardian," to which both hon. Members referred, asked what the Minister considered was meant by the principle of the National Parks.
The second principle is, as far as past development is concerned, to ensure, as and when we can, that we get rid of some of the blots on the landscape whenever possible. The third point is the question of access, to ensure that possibilities for recreation are developed and that people are allowed to get access to these beauty spots.
One case that I have in mind is Kinder-scout. For many years I fought for access to it, long before the hon. Member went near the place. There is access to it now. If the hon. Member's bitter, sarcastic criticisms, here and in the country, were more concerned—

Mr. Blenkinsop: What criticisms is the hon. Gentleman talking about? Tonight, I tried to make a reasoned, careful speech, so that he could make a helpful reply, but he is not doing so.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member is not allowing me to do that, because in less than 10 minutes he has already interrupted once; and that is not giving a junior Minister time to reply comprehensively to the point that he has raised.
On the question of access to Kinder-scout, for example, to which I refer as illustrating one of the principles of a National Park, no one in the last few years has been denied access to it. There is a route which the hon. Member himself took on a very fine day when he was there. Most of the criticism which comes from the hon. Member and from my hon. Friend is directed to the precise and meticulous methods of the administrative set-up.
But surely what really counts in administration is not so much the method but the spirit. The marriage contract is an extremely small contract, and a number of people interpret it in a variety of ways. Some make a success of it, others do not. The main point is if you get the spirit right, whatever the contract, it will succeed. If you get it wrong it will not succeed. It is often said, and it was inferred tonight, that administration based on local control can never get results. But is that true, because if the local control can get the results, and fulfils the principles, that is what matters. It is the end product that matters, and no one has yet given these local boards a chance to succeed.
I appealed, on 6th December, to people to stop nagging them, particularly some of the more high-minded Press, and give them a chance. There was the criticism of the Peak Planning Board, appointed by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, on the grounds that he had not appointed the people who had really worked for many years for the National Park. Why not give them a chance? They cannot


be removed until 1954. Is there any evidence, apart from the theoretical and fixed prejudices which people have had against these local boards, that local control cannot work? I do not think so.
My right hon. Friend believes that if the National Parks are to succeed the people who live in those areas must want them to be a success, and must work to that end, and must be given the first chance to make them a success. He does not believe he should force them to accept a form of administration repugnant to them, and I think it is better to give them a chance, and see how it goes.
On the question of Snowdon, where I shall be on Sunday, the hon. Gentleman opposite knows as well as I do that the Welsh temperament can be very eccentric. I was present with the Minister when he met a deputation from Wales, and the Members were unanimously hostile to any sort of joint board. In deference to their strongly expressed views he has agreed, for a trial period of

three years, to a joint advisory committee instead of a joint board, subject to certain assurances from the county council designed to ensure the efficient administration of the Park.
I make no bones about this. My right hon. Friend and I did not like the arrangement at all, but it is much better to give them a chance rather than have the whole of the local inhabitants hostile. If it does not work we can still secure the principles of the National Parks, but it is wrong to demand them when there has been such strong expression of local sentiment, and I hope that that will be—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute to One o'Clock a.m.